Opinion
No. 06-71713.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 28, 2008.
Kathleen S. Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.
James A. Hurley, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A078-420-317.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jerry Rey, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA denied Rey's asylum application as time-barred. Rey does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of withholding of removal because Rey's testimony failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2004) applies to Indonesian Christians seeking withholding of removal, Rey has not demonstrated a clear probability of future persecution: See id. at 1185. Lastly, this record does not establish that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
We decline to consider Rey's CAT claim because he did not raise any arguments in his opening brief challenging the agency's denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).