Hendrik Tangke 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HENDRIK TANGKE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70755
Agency No. A078-020-261
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Hendrik Tangke, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order and denying his motion to remand. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Bui
FILED
JUN 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70755 2
v. INS, 76 F.3d 268, 269 (9th Cir. 1996), and we review for abuse of discretion the
BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d
1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
Contrary to Tangke’s contention, the IJ did not err by failing to advise him
that he could apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the
Convention Against Torture. The IJ considered Tangke’s testimony regarding his
past difficulties in Indonesia and concluded that Tangke had not demonstrated a
reasonable possibility that he was eligible for relief. See Bui, 76 F.3d at 270 (IJ
must inform an alien of his “apparent eligibility” to apply for relief when there is a
reasonable possibility that he may be eligible for relief); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2).
Moreover, Tangke did not express a fear of persecution or harm in returning to
Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(1).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Tangke’s motion to remand
on the ground that Tangke failed to set forth a prima facie case for relief. See
Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003) (to establish a prima facie case,
the evidence must reveal a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for
relief have been satisfied).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --