FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 30 2010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
AGUS WIDADA, No. 07-74297
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-634-567
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Agus Widada, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1
(1992), and de novo due process claims, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.
2001). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Widada established changed
or extraordinary circumstances that excuse the untimely filing of his 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). In addition, we reject Widada’s
contention that the BIA violated due process by declining to address his claim that
the special registration requirement under 8 C.F.R. § 264.1(f)(4) constituted a
change in the law excusing his untimely application. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process
challenge).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Widada failed to
establish a clear probability of persecution because the harassment and
discrimination he experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not
amount to past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.
2003). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that, even if he were a
member of a disfavored group, Widada did not demonstrate a sufficiently
2 07-74297
individualized risk of persecution. See id. at 1184-85; see also Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“An applicant for withholding of removal
will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence
to prevail”). Accordingly, Widada’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Widada did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the Indonesian government. See id. at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-74297