Rolly Stevanes Enoch v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

07-72242Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit4 juin 2010

Texte intégral

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROLLY STEVANES ENOCH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72242
Agency No. A093-321-787
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.
Rolly Stevanes Enoch, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Fakhry v.
FILED
JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72242 2
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for
review.
Enoch did not allege that he experienced past persecution or any harm in
Indonesia. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of
removal because Enoch did not establish a clear probability of persecution on
account of his Christian religion, see Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th
Cir. 2007) (en banc), or his status as a publisher of a Christian newsletter, see
Fakhry, 524 F.3d at 1066. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding
that Enoch failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in
Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2009).
Enoch does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum application as
time-barred or the denial of his application for relief under the Convention Against
Torture. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.