FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JILSCA OPPIER, No. 08-72319
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-362-881
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 8, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jilsca Oppier (Oppier), an Indonesian citizen, petitions for review
of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her asylum
application as untimely, and denying Oppier’s requests for withholding of removal
and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. Oppier contends that changed
*
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).
circumstances excused the untimely filing of her asylum application, and that the
BIA’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief is not supported by
substantial evidence.
The BIA’s dismissal of Oppier’s untimely asylum application is supported
by substantial evidence because Oppier failed to demonstrate changed
circumstances “materially affecting [her] eligibility for asylum.” Singh v. Holder,
656 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); see also Ramadan v.
Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The record . . . does not compel the
conclusion that [Oppier] showed changed circumstances to excuse the late filing of
her asylum application. . . .”).
The BIA’s denial of withholding of removal was also supported by
substantial evidence, as Oppier failed to demonstrate that her harassment in
Indonesia rose to the level of past persecution and “that she will more likely than
not be singled out individually for persecution on account of a protected ground. . .
.” Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1062 n.5 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended;
see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that
substantial evidence supported rejection of past persecution claim because
petitioner failed to demonstrate “a pattern of persecution closely tied to . . . [the
petitioner]”) (citation omitted).
2
Because Oppier failed to present any evidence that it was more likely than
not that she would be tortured in Indonesia, Oppier’s CAT claim fails. See
Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To establish eligibility
under CAT, an alien must demonstrate that [she] will more likely than not be
tortured if removed to [her] home country. . . .”) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted).
PETITION DENIED.
3