FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ICHSAN GUNADI, No. 08-71338
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-263-738
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
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.
Ichsan Gunadi, 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
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Contrary to Gunadi’s contention, the record does not compel the conclusion
that Guandi filed his asylum application within a reasonable period of time after
any extraordinary circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, his
asylum claim fails.
Gunadi does not argue he suffered past persecution, but he contends he will
be persecuted in the future due to his dispute with a former friend. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gunadi failed to establish a clear
probability of future persecution. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc) (explaining persecution is an “extreme concept” involving the
infliction of harm). Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Gunadi failed to show that it is more likely than not that he 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 08-71338