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NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 13 2011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
LEONARD MANEGENG, No. 08-70932
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-629-993
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.
Leonard Manegeng, 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
*
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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Manegeng established
changed circumstances sufficient to excuse his untimely asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Manegeng’s asylum claim.
The record also does not compel the conclusion that Manegeng suffered past
persecution based on the discriminatory mistreatment he experienced in Indonesia.
See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1059-60. In addition, even though he is a member of a disfavored group, the
record does not compel the conclusion that Manegeng established a clear
probability of persecution in Indonesia, because he has not demonstrated sufficient
individualized risk. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003);
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need
to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence”).
Accordingly, Manegeng’s withholding of removal claim fails.
2 08-70932
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Manegeng failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70932