FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELISJAH TJONDROWALUYO; No. 08-70304
VINSENSIUS BLANTERAN ROSARI,
Agency Nos. A096-169-517
Petitioners, A096-169-518
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
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.
Elisjah Tjondrowaluyo and Vinsensius Blanteran Rosari, natives and citizens
of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
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 Tjondrowaluyo established
extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse her delay in filing her asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088,
1090-92 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
The BIA found that, even assuming Tjondrowaluyo was credible and had
established past persecution on account of her Chinese ethnicity and Christian
religion, changed country conditions in Indonesia rebutted the presumption of a
clear probability of persecution. In reaching this conclusion, the BIA did not apply
the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29
(9th Cir. 2004). In light of our recent decisions in Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1064-65
and Tampubulon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 2010), we remand for
the BIA to assess Tjondrowaluyo’s withholding of removal claim under the
disfavored group analysis in the first instance. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067; see
also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
2 08-70304
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 08-70304