Rudolf Pojoh 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).
The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the***
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUDOLF POJOH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-75148
Agency Nos. A095-629-925
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted on June 11, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District
Judge.***
FILED
JUL 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CL
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE A

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Petitioner, Rudolph Pojoh, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).
Petitioner’s application for asylum is time-barred. Petitioner did not
demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimeliness. Therefore,
this court affirms the BIA’s decision denying his application for asylum.
We have recently held that the BIA should review withholding of removal
cases under the same disfavored group analysis applied in reviewing asylum
applications. See Tampubolon v. Holder, 598 F.3d 521, 527 (9th Cir. 2010)
(holding that the court must remand to the BIA “for it to determine whether the
combination of disfavored group evidence and evidence of individualized risk is
sufficient to establish a clear probability that petitioners will be persecuted if
removed to Indonesia”). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand
to the BIA to evaluate petitioner’s withholding of removal claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED AND REMANDED FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL DECISION.

-- 2 of 2 --