Johny Franky Longdong 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNY FRANKY LONGDONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71908
Agency No. A095-629-966
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Johny Franky Longdong, 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 asylum and withholding
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

NV/Research 07-71908 2
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law and review for substantial evidence factual findings. See Husyev
v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused the untimely filing of Longdong’s asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). We reject Longdong’s equal protection and due
process contentions regarding the one-year time bar. See Hernandez-Mezquita v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting an equal protection
and due process challenge to statutory time limitation where such limitation served
rational purpose). Therfore, we deny the petition as to Longdong’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Longdong failed to
establish he suffered harm that rose to the level of past persecution on account of
his Christian religion. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir.
2003). Even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d
922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004) applies to Christian Indonesians, Longdong did not
demonstrate a sufficiently individualized risk of persecution necessary to establish
a clear probability of future persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d at 1179,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003). Lastly, the record does not compel the conclusion that
Longdong established a pattern or practice of persecution against Christians in

-- 2 of 3 --

NV/Research 07-71908 3
Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, Longdong’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --