Johny Hartanto; Juito Hartanto v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr, Attorney General

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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNY HARTANTO; JUITO
HARTANTO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72670
Agency Nos. A078-020-389
A078-020-390
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Johny Hartanto, and his brother, Juito Hartanto, 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
FILED
MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JT/Research 07-72670 2
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have 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.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused the untimely filing of petitioners’ asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam). We reject petitioners’ contention that the one-year time bar
violates their due process and equal protection rights. See Hernandez-Mezquita v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting due process and equal
protection challenges to a statutory time limitation where limitation served a
rational purpose). Therefore, we deny petitioners’ asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish past persecution, because the incidents they suffered did not rise
to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.
1995). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners did not establish a clear probability of future persecution, because, even
as members of a disfavored group, they did not demonstrate the requisite
individualized risk. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2003). Accordingly, we deny petitioners’ withholding of removal claim.

-- 2 of 3 --

JT/Research 07-72670 3
Petitioners have failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the
agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --