Togar Marulitua Sibuea 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TOGAR MARULITUA SIBUEA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70557
Agency No. A095-634-708
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Togar Marulitua Sibuea, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
JAN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction over Sibuea’s claim that extraordinary circumstances
excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application because the particular
argument that Sibuea raises in his opening brief was not exhausted before the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore,
we dismiss the petition with respect to Sibuea’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that fundamental
changes in circumstances in Indonesia rebut the presumption that Sibuea’s life or
freedom would be threatened on account of his beliefs. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 1281, 1285–86, 1288 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency rationally construed country
report and provided individualized analysis of changed conditions specific to
petitioner’s situation). Thus, Sibuea’s claim for withholding of removal fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Sibuea failed to show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --