FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANCE KARAMOY WENAS et al., No. 08-71776
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A095-302-046
A095-302-047
v. A095-302-048
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Ance Karamoy Wenas and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and
we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners have established
extraordinary circumstances to excuse their untimely asylum application. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.
2010) (per curiam). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harassment
Wenas and her family experienced, and the beating of her son, did not rise to the
level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003).
The record also does not compel the conclusion that petitioners have a clear
probability of future persecution. See Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66
(9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not that they will be
tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68
(9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71776