Sunday Saut Lomo Parulian 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).
RA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUNDAY SAUT LOMO PARULIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73016
Agency No. A078-020-256
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sunday Saut Lomo Parulian, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RA/Research 07-73016 2
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Lolong v.
Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc), we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Parulian failed to
establish past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 101 6-17 (9th Cir.
2003). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Parulian
failed to establish a clear probability of furture persecution because he has not
provided sufficient evidence that he will be specifically targeted for persecution.
See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Parulian failed to show it was more likely than not that he would be
tortured in Indonesia. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --