Ate Arman 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ATE ARMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72817
Agency No. A095-629-982
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ate Arman, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder,
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72817 2
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA denied Arman’s untimely motion to reopen after finding that he
failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. In doing so, the BIA found that,
even under a disfavored group analysis, Arman failed to establish sufficient
individualized risk of persecution to warrant relief, and also that Arman failed to
provide any evidence that his children would be harmed. The BIA did not abuse
its discretion in denying Arman’s motion. See id. at 986 (BIA can deny a motion
to reopen on “any one of ‘at least’ three independent grounds,” including “failure
to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought”); see also Halim v. Holder, 590
F.3d 971, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2009).
In light of our previous conclusion in Arman v. Holder, No. 07-71553, 2010
WL 1986196 (9th Cir. May 18, 2010), we do not address Arman’s argument that
he has demonstrated that harm to his wife due to her Chinese ethnicity constitutes a
pattern of persecution tied to Arman.
Finally, we reject Arman’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the
evidence of harm suffered by his in-laws. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d
1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must overcome the presumption that the
agency has considered all the evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --