Lukarsono 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUKARSONO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70317
Agency No. A095-634-688
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Lukarsono, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUL 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70317 2
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), and we grant in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Lukarsono fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that his asylum claim was time-barred, and also does not raise any
substantive challenge to the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued are deemed waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of past persecution
because Lukarsono failed to show he was harmed by forces the government was
unable or unwilling to control. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072
(9th Cir. 2005).
Lukarsono argued to the BIA that he feared future persecution on account of
his Chinese ethnicity and Christian religion. The agency did not consider
Lukarsono’s application for withholding of removal under the disfavored group
analysis. In light of our recent decisions in Wakkary and Tampubolon v. Holder,
No. 06-70811, 2010 WL 2541610 at *5 (9th Cir. June 25, 2010), we remand for
the BIA to assess Lukarsono’s withholding of removal claim under the disfavored

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70317 3
group analysis in the first instance. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067; see also INS v.
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --