Tjioe Sim Lim; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TJIOE SIM LIM; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73017
Agency Nos. A096-054-796
A096-054-797
A096-054-798
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Tjioe Sim Lim, and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
AUG 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-73017 2
(“CAT”). Our 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
we deny in part grant in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners demonstrated
extraordinary circumstances to excuse their untimely asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, we deny the petition with respect to
petitioners’ asylum claim.
The BIA found the incidents of harm petitioners suffered, including the
incident in which native Indonesian Muslims attempted to rape Lim and attacked
and beat Lim and her husband, did not rise to the level of persecution. Substantial
evidence does not support this finding. See Ruano v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1155,
1159-61 (9th Cir. 2002) (threats accompanied by close confrontation may
constitute past persecution). Accordingly, we remand the petitioners’ withholding
of removal claim to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’
CAT claim because they failed to establish they would more likely than not be
tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

-- 2 of 3 --

07-73017 3
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --