Nico Inkiriwang 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NICO INKIRIWANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70090
Agency No. A078-020-239
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Nico Inkiriwang, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from
the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Specifically, he asserts that the
BIA erred when it determined that his asylum application was untimely, and that
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or1
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No.
100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 208.18).
2
he was not entitled to withholding of removal or protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We1
review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815 & n.1, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992). We
deny the petition.
Inkiriwang concedes that he did not file for asylum within one year after he
arrived in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Moreover, substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Inkiriwang failed to demonstrate that
changed circumstances materially affected his eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). The record does not compel the
conclusion that a death threat Inkiriwang received in 2002 was anything but a
continuation of preexisting circumstances that motivated Inkiriwang to leave
Indonesia in the first place. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481 & n.1, 112 S. Ct.
at 815 & n.1.
The record also does not compel the conclusion that Inkiriwang was entitled
to withholding of removal or protection under the CAT. See id.; see also Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence supports

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the IJ’s finding that death threats on purely personal grounds by a customs official
and destruction of Inkiriwang’s property by unknown individuals were criminal
acts that were not related to any protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i);
Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000); Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d
1206, 1212-14 (9th Cir. 2009). Inkiriwang similarly has failed to establish that he
will be persecuted or tortured upon return to Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. §
208.18(a)(1); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Inkiriwang’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --