Richard Hutasoit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICHARD HUTASOIT,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73209
Agency No. A097-194-590
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Richard Hutasoit, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions pro se 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JAN 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73209 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Hutasoit established
changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Hutasoit’s
experiences in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of
past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). In
addition, the record does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or
practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009).
In assessing Hutasoit’s individualized risk of future persecution, however,
the agency did not have the benefit of our opinions in Wakkary or Tampubolon v.
Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we grant the petition with
respect to Hutasoit’s withholding of removal claim and remand for the agency to
consider it under a disfavored group analysis. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16
(2002) (per curiam).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73209 3
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Hutasoit failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
Each party shall bear their own costs on this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --