Henry Rochmana Hadi; Nana Nerdeanna 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).
JLA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENRY ROCHMANA HADI; NANA
NERDEANNA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70304
Agency Nos. A096-364-529
A096-364-528
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Henry Rochmana Hadi and his wife Nana Nerdeanna, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JLA/Research 06-70304 2
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review factual findings to be certain they are supported by substantial
evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
The agency denied petitioners’ asylum claim as time-barred. Petitioners do
not challenge this finding in their opening brief.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal
because petitioners did not produce “credible, direct, and specific evidence” that
they will be persecuted because of the years they lived in the United States, or that
they or their daughter will be persecuted because their daughter is an American
citizen. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1428 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Nagoulko
v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (denying claim where fear of future
persecution is too speculative).
We decline to take judicial notice of the 2003 and 2005 U.S. State
Department Travel Warnings. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996)
(en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --