Alfonso Siringoringo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALFONSO SIRINGORINGO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73508
Agency No. A095-629-764
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Alfonso Siringoringo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from
the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73508 2
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law and review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and grant in part the
petition for review, and we remand.
In his opening brief, Siringoringo fails to challenge the IJ’s dispositive
determination that his asylum claim was time-barred, and he also does not raise
any substantive challenge to the denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are not addressed in the
argument portion of a brief are deemed waived). Accordingly, we deny the
petition as to these claims.
Siringoringo’s contention that the agency erred in failing to consider his
country condition evidence is belied by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Siringoringo’s contentions based on being a
member of the “Medanese tribe” because he did not exhaust them before the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Siringoringo does not argue he suffered past persecution as a Christian in
Indonesia, but he contends that he has shown a likelihood of future persecution as a
member of a disfavored group and because of a pattern and practice of persecution.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Siringoringo failed to establish a

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73508 3
pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558
F.3d at 1060-62. However, the IJ found the disfavored group analysis did not
apply to Siringoringo’s claims, and did not consider it when she denied relief.
Because the IJ did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Tampubolon v.
Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010), we remand for the agency to assess
Siringoringo’s withholding of removal claim under the disfavored group analysis
in the first instance. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-67; see also INS v. Ventura,
537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --