Olvyke Chanette Langie; Hasan Raintung; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OLVYKE CHANETTE LANGIE;
HASAN RAINTUNG; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70749
Agency Nos. A079-535-288
A079-535-289
A079-535-291
A078-112-465
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Olvyke Chanette Langie, Hasan Raintung, and their children, 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
FILED
APR 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70749 2
denying their applications for 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, Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083,
1088 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Petitioners each filed separate applications for asylum, and were also listed
as derivatives of Langie’s application. Except for three house burning incidents
Raintung alleged that related solely to him, petitioners’ claims are all based on the
grounds set forth in Langie’s testimony.
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners established
changed circumstances to excuse their untimely asylum applications. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, their asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Raintung was
not credible regarding the alleged burning of his parents’ home in Indonesia based
on his evasive and non-responsive testimony. See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250,
1256-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to
establish the disruptions of their church services and the one assault constituted
harm rising to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70749 3
1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding
that petitioners did not demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution in
Indonesia. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (applicant’s
continued presence in home country without harm undercut claim); Tamang, 598
F.3d at 1094 (voluntary return trips to an applicant’s home country militate against
a future fear finding). Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of removal claims
fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1095. We reject petitioners’
contention that the agency failed to consider all the evidence. See Fernandez v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the
presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --