Johanis Danun 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHANIS DANUN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73315
Agency No. A096-494-497
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Johanis Danun, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-73315 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Danun established changed
circumstances to excuse his untimely filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Danun’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Danun failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if
removed to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
In concluding Danun did not suffer past persecution, the BIA did not
consider the events in the 1950s that the IJ found constituted persecution on
account of religion. Therefore, we remand for the BIA to consider these events in
the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
In analyzing Danun’s withholding of removal claim, the agency declined to
apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922,
927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Because intervening case law holds the disfavored group
analysis applies to withholding of removal claims, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1062-65, we remand to the agency for reconsideration of Danun’s withholding of

-- 2 of 3 --

07-73315 3
removal claim. See Ventura, 537 U.S. at 16-18; see also Tampubolon v. Holder,
610 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A]ny reasonable factfinder would be
compelled to conclude on this record that Christian Indonesians are a disfavored
group.”).
Each party shall bear their own costs on appeal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --