Ades Harlisman 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ADES HARLISMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72145
Agency No. A095-618-105
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.
Ades Harlisman, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72145 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed circumstances
excused the untimely filing of Harlisman’s asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam). Accordingly, Harlisman’s asylum claim fails.
Harlisman concedes he did not suffer past persecution. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that Harlisman failed to establish a clear
probability of future persecution because any harm he fears from his former father-
in-law is not on account of a protected ground, see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859,
865 (9th Cir. 2001), and even if he was a member of a disfavored group, as a
liberal Muslim Indonesian, he did not demonstrate a sufficiently individualized risk
of persecution, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because he
did not establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if he returns to
Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --