AIMELLIA KRISTENSON SIEMSON; JOHANUS KRISTANTO, a.k.a. Johannes Alexander Siemson 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AIMELLIA KRISTENSON SIEMSON;
JOHANUS KRISTANTO, a.k.a. Johannes
Alexander Siemson,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73113
Agency Nos. A079-611-942
A079-611-975
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Aimellia Kristenson Siemson and Johanus Kristanto, 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 denying their
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

06-73113 2
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review de novo
due process claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel, Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused the untimely filing of Johanus Kristanto’s asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d
646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Petitioners do not contend they suffered past persecution in Indonesia.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners do not have a
well-founded fear of future persecution, because, even as a members of a
disfavored group, they failed to demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of
persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004); see
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“An applicant for withholding of
removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk
evidence to prevail”). Accordingly, Aimellia Siemson’s asylum claim fails, and
petitioners’ withholding of removal claims fail.

-- 2 of 3 --

06-73113 3
Finally, we agree with the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners failed to
establish former counsel’s performance resulted in prejudice, and thus their claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel also fails. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94
(to demonstrate prejudice, alien must establish that counsel’s performance may
have affected outcome of the proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --