FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SRI ENDANG; HERMAN SUHENDRA, No. 08-72228
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A096-048-710
A096-048-711
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
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.
Sri Endang and Herman Suhendra, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders upholding an
immigration judge’s denial of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for
substantial evidence factual findings. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Endang’s claim for humanitarian relief
because she did not raise this issue to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3rd
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented below). She
does not otherwise challenge the agency’s denial of asylum.
With respect to Endang, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that she was not credible given her inconsistent statements regarding
whether she was raped. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000).
Endang’s contention that the agency failed to provide an opportunity to explain
perceived inconsistencies in her testimony about the alleged rape is belied by the
record. Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Endang’s claim for
withholding of removal fails.
With respect to Suhendra, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that he failed to carry his burden of proof that he suffered past
persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009)
(beatings and robberies of petitioner and harms to petitioner’s associates that were
not part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to petitioner did not compel a
2 08-72228
finding of past persecution). As Suhendra has not established past persecution, he
is not entitled to a presumption of future persecution, see 8 C.F.R. §
1208.16(b)(1)(i), and he does not otherwise contend he has shown a clear
probability of persecution. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Suhendra’s
withholding of removal claim.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief as to
both petitioners because they failed to establish it is more likely than not they
would be tortured if removed to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-72228