FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRI SANBUDIARTO, No. 08-71559
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-635-756
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Tri Sanbudiarto, native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 factual findings. INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Sanbudiarto’s untimely
asylum application is excused by changed or extraordinary circumstances. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010)
(per curiam). Accordingly, Sanbudiarto’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the instances of
discrimination, the attack on Sanbudiarto’s home and the blocking of the church
entrance on Christmas in 1999, did not rise to the level of past persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that Sanbudiarto failed to demonstrate a
clear probability of future persecution because he can relocate to another part of
Indonesia. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir.
2003) (country report supports the agency’s finding that petitioner could relocate
safely). Accordingly, Sanbudiarto’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Sanbudiarto has not established that any torture he may suffer would be by
2 08-71559
or with the acquiescence of the Indonesian government. See Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71559