ECKY MARTO TOMPODUNG; IVONNE MARLYN TOMPODUNG, a.k.a. Efonia Marlet Tompodung 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ECKY MARTO TOMPODUNG;
IVONNE MARLYN TOMPODUNG,
a.k.a. Efonia Marlet Tompodung,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74985
Agency Nos. A078-020-376
A097-351-366
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ecky Marto Tompodung and Ivonne Marlyn Tompodung, natives and
citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74985 2
denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ argument that changed
circumstances excused the untimely asylum application, because they did not raise
this to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no
jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below).
Accordingly, because this is the only challenge to the agency’s time-bar finding,
we deny the petition as to petitioners’ asylum claim.
With respect to withholding of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider
petitioners’ new claim that they suffered past persecution because they did not
raise this to the BIA. See id. In addition, even under a disfavored group analysis,
petitioners have not shown sufficient individualized risk to establish a clear
probability of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.
2003); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will
need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence”).
Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of removal claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74985 3
Finally, we also lack jurisdiction over any challenge to the IJ’s denial of
CAT relief, and over petitioners’ due process challenge to the deficiencies in the
transcript, because petitioners did not raise these issues to the BIA. See Barron,
358 F.3d at 678.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --