Case ID: f-appx_294/html/0350-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ilse Naomi GERUNG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-73711.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2008.
    Kathleen S. Koh, Law Office of Kathleen Koh, Whittier, CA, Houman Varzandeh, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Trade N. Jones, Michele Y.F. Sarko, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Use Naomi Gerung, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Gerung has shown extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of her asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to the asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal, because Gerung failed to demonstrate past persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-17. Furthermore, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004) applies in the context of withholding of removal, Gerung has not established that it is more likely than not that she will be persecuted if she returned to Indonesia. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review Gerung’s contention regarding the hearing transcript because she failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir .2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.