FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RITA HELEN HIDAYAT and MARIO No. 05-70802
SUCONGGA,
Agency Nos. A096-362-895
Petitioners, A095-618-069
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Rita Helen Hidayat and her husband, Mario Sucongga, natives and citizens
of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ orders
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for substantial evidence
factual findings. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Petitioners fail to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of their CAT
claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues
not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners filed their asylum
application within a reasonable period of time after any extraordinary
circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); Husyev, 528 F.3d at 1181-82.
Accordingly, we deny the petition as to the asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners did
not experience harms in Indonesia amounting to past persecution. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (being beaten by youths, robbed of
sandals and pocket money, and accosted by a threatening mob did not compel a
past persecution finding). However, because the agency did not have the benefit of
our recent decisions in Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010), and
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009), we remand for the agency to
assess petitioners’ withholding of removal claim under the disfavored group
2 05-70802
analysis in the first instance. See Tampubolon, 610 F.3d at 1062; 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.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 05-70802