Nancy Sukmawati Liem 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NANCY SUKMAWATI LIEM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73618
Agency No. A098-440-348
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Nancy Sukmawati Liem, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JUL 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-73618 2
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 Liem’s untimely asylum
application is excused by extraordinary circumstances, including ineffective
assistance of counsel. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612
F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (nothing extraordinary about
petitioner’s inability to speak English, detention, or transfer of his case); Balam-
Chuc v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008) (no ineffective assistance
where the failure to file a visa application did not relate to the substance of an
ongoing proceeding).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Liem failed to
establish the harm she suffered rose to the level of past persecution. See Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d
1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harm was “disturbing and regrettable” but not severe
enough to constitute persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
finding that, even as a member of a disfavored group, Liem failed to demonstrate
sufficient individualized risk to establish a clear probability of persecution. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1065; Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-79 (9th Cir.
2009). The record does not compel a conclusion that there is a pattern or practice

-- 2 of 3 --

09-73618 3
of persecution of Chinese Christian Indonesians. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061.
Finally, Liem’s contention that Chinese Indonesians may be targeted again if there
is further economic or political instability in Indonesia is too speculative to be
credited as a basis for fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d
1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Liem’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --