Bobby Giroth 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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOBBY GIROTH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70006
Agency No. A096-361-974
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Bobby Giroth, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection
FILED
DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 07-70006 2
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we grant in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Giroth failed to
establish he suffered past persecution in Indonesia. See id. at 1059-60. In
analyzing Giroth’s withholding of removal claim, the agency declined to apply the
disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th
Cir. 2004). Because intervening case law holds the disfavored group analysis
applies, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1062-65, we remand to the agency for
consideration of whether Giroth is entitled to withholding of removal. See id. at
1067; INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Giroth has not established it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he
returns to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --