Anjar Napitupulu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANJAR NAPITUPULU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75088
Agency No. A093-321-651
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Anjar Napitupulu, 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, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-75088 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review findings of fact for substantial
evidence and questions of law de novo.” Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118,
1121 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Napitupulu filed his asylum
application within a reasonable period of time after any potential extraordinary or
changed circumstance excusing the delay. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D);
Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we deny
the petition as to his asylum claim.
Napitupulu does not contend that he suffered past persecution, but argues
that he will suffer harm in the future on account of his Christianity. Substantial
evidence supports the denial of Napitupulu’s claim for withholding of removal
because he has not shown that he faces an individualized risk of persecution. See
Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); cf. also
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065–66 (9th Cir. 2009) (“An applicant for
withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of
individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum applicant like Sael,
assuming their disfavored group evidence is of equal severity and pervasiveness,
because the ultimate bar for withholding is higher than the bar for asylum.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Napitupulu failed

-- 2 of 3 --

07-75088 3
to establish that he would more likely than not be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of government officials if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558
F.3d at 1068. We therefore deny the petition as to his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --