Melwanche Arief 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MELWANCHE ARIEF,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71825
Agency No. A095-634-613
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Melwanche Arief, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71825
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th
Cir. 2008), and we review de novo due process claims, Iturribarria v. INS, 321
F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Arief does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his application
is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). Accordingly,
his asylum claim fails.
With respect to his withholding of removal claim, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s findings that Arief’s beating by five unknown individuals
does not constitute persecution because the government was not involved, and
petitioner did not establish that police were unwilling or unable to control his
attackers. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).
Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that Arief has not
met his burden in establishing that it is more likely than not he will suffer future
persecution if returned to Indonesia. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018
(9th Cir. 2003); Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2008)
(evidence of Senegalese applicant’s severe beating and his membership in an

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71825
opposition group did not compel a finding that it was more likely than not he
would be persecuted upon return).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s findings that Arief has not
established that he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Indonesian.
government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.
Finally, we reject Arief’s contention that the IJ should have recused himself
and that the IJ impermissibly referred back to the old hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --