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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011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
ARIF EFENDI, No. 08-70537
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-629-895
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.
Arif Efendi, 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”). Our
*
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 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
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Efendi fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that his asylum claim was time-barred.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, on this record, Efendi
failed to demonstrate the Indonesian government was unable or unwilling to
control the Muslim extremists who abused and threatened him. See Rahimzadeh v.
Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence also supports the
BIA’s conclusion that Efendi did not demonstrate a clear probability of future
persecution. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002)
(when a petitioner has not established past persecution, the agency may “rely on all
relevant evidence in the record, including a State Department report, in considering
whether the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future
persecution.”). Accordingly, Efendi’s withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction over Efendi’s CAT claim because he did not exhaust it
before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-70537