Henri Nababan; Harlena Rose Silalahi 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HENRI NABABAN; HARLENA ROSE
SILALAHI,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71734
Agency Nos. A078-020-176
A096-349-826
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Henri Nababan and Harlena Rose Silalahi, 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 applications for
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-71734 2
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Nababan established
changed circumstances to excuse the delay in filing his asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam). Accordingly, Nababan’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners did not
establish their experiences in Indonesia rose to the level of persecution. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (being beaten, robbed of sandals and pocket money,
and accosted by a mob did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial
evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that even under a disfavored group
analysis, petitioners have not demonstrated sufficient individualized risk of
persecution to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1066. Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners have
established eligibility for relief due to their United States citizen children and
affiliation with the western world. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

10-71734 3
Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, their
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners did
not establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured if they return to
Indonesia. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, their CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --