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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011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
YATI BONG, No. 08-70417
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-474-200
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.
Yati Bong, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
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 Bong established changed or
extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimely filing of her 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); Tampubulon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1059
n.4 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Bong’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Bong’s claim for CAT
relief because she failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Bong’s
experiences in Indonesia, including harassment, discrimination, and a robbery, did
not constitute past persecution. See id. at 1059-60. In addition, the record does not
compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against
Chinese in Indonesia. See id. at 1061-62. However, in denying Bong’s
withholding of removal claim, the agency did not apply the disfavored group
analysis. Because the agency did not have the benefit of our intervening decision
in Wakkary, we remand for the agency to assess Bong’s withholding of removal
2 08-70417
claim under the disfavored group analysis in the first instance. See id. at 1067; see
also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 08-70417