Neneng Sonia 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NENENG SONIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72025
Agency No. A096-061-125
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Neneng Sonia, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
JUL 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72025 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We dismiss in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Sonia’s request for CAT relief because she
did not exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
With respect to Sonia’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Sonia’s experiences in
Indonesia, including threats to burn down the school where she worked during the
May 1998 riots, vandalism of a church she attended, and the receipt of phone calls
and letters from listeners of her radio show expressing opposition to her teachings,
even considered cumulatively, do not constitute past persecution. See Wakkary,
558 F.3d at 1059-60; Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003)
(unfulfilled threats and one incident of physical violence did not compel a finding
of past persecution). In finding that Sonia did not establish a well-founded fear of
persecution, the BIA noted that she did not argue that she is eligible for asylum
under a disfavored group theory or a pattern or practice theory, and the BIA
declined to analyze her claim under those theories. In fact, she raised the pattern or
practice argument to the BIA, and we reject the government’s argument that Sonia

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72025 3
failed to exhaust the disfavored group claim because she effectively argued this
theory in her pre-Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010), brief to
the BIA.
Accordingly, we grant the petition with respect to Sonia’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims, and we remand to the BIA for further proceedings
consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)
(per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --