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NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 13 2011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
SUJAI SUWANDA, No. 08-70924
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-020-252
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.
Sujai Suwanda, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). 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 de novo questions of law and review for
substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Suwanda established
changed or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse the delay in filing his
asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d
1088, 1090-92 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646,
657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, Suwanda’s asylum claim fails.
The record also does not compel the conclusion that Suwanda suffered past
persecution based on the one beating, unfulfilled threats, and harassment that he
experienced in Indonesia. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.
2003); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60. Further, the record does not compel the
conclusion that Suwanda demonstrated a clear probability of future persecution in
Indonesia. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1184-85. Accordingly, Suwanda’s withholding
of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Suwanda failed to establish a likelihood of torture by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in
2 08-70924
an official capacity if returned to Indonesia. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d
940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70924