FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IRIANNA FRANSISKA PARDEDE; et No. 08-70760
al.,
Agency Nos. A097-877-646
Petitioners, A097-877-647
A097-877-663
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Irianna Fransiska Pardede and two of her children, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
Pardede’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Pardede’s
asylum application was untimely, and that no extraordinary circumstances excused
the untimely filing, because the relevant facts are in dispute. See Ramadan v.
Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
In their opening brief, petitioners do not reassert the arguments they made
to the BIA that the IJ failed to consider the attempted rape of Pardede in 1983, and
the cumulative effect of the incidents Pardede endured in evaluating past
persecution. Nor do they contend the BIA erred in failing to address those
arguments. Petitioners also do not raise any claim based on Pardede’s imputed
political opinion. Accordingly, we do not consider them. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are
deemed abandoned).
In her opening brief, Pardede argues she established her eligibility for
withholding of removal based on the country conditions evidence that indicates
religious clashes between Christians and Muslims still occur. The record does not
2 08-70760
compel the conclusion this evidence demonstrates a clear probability that Pardede
would be persecuted on account of her Christian religion. See Lolong v. Gonzales,
484 F.3d 1173, 1179-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting the petitioner did not assert she
feared being individually targeted for persecution, and finding no pattern or
practice of persecution against ethnic Chinese Christians); Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Pardede’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Pardede did not
establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or
acquiescence of the Indonesian government. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68;
Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, her CAT
claim fails.
Finally, we deny as moot petitioners’ motion to remand to the BIA for
consideration of their applications to adjust their status. Subsequent to petitioners’
motion to the court, the BIA denied their pending motion to reopen based on those
applications.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 08-70760