FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAFFET MATINDAS, No. 07-73116
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-020-315
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Yaffet Matindas, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and grant in part
the petition for review, and we remand.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused Matindas’ untimely filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam). Accordingly, Matindas’ asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Matindas failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon
return to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
Matindas suffered death threats, the destruction of two businesses, two
attacks where his car was stopped and stolen, and a forced relocation, all on
account of his Christian religion. Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s
determination that these incidents did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th Cir.2004) (cumulative effects of
attacks and economic harassment compelled finding of persecution). In addition,
in denying Matindas’ withholding of removal claim, the BIA did not apply the
disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th
Cir. 2004). Intervening case law holds the disfavored group analysis applies to
2
Matindas withholding of removal claim. See Wakkary, 558 F. 3d at 1062-65: see
also Tampubolon v. Holder, 2010 WL 2451610 at *5 (9th Cir. June 25, 2010)
(“[A]ny reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude on this record that
Christian Indonesians are a disfavored group.”). Accordingly, we grant the
petition for review with respect to Matindas’ withholding of removal claim and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v.
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.
3