Case ID: f-appx_333/html/0259-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Johnson NAPITULPULU, aka Johnson Napitupulu, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71627.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2009.
    Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
    Susan Houser, U.S. Department of Justice, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, DC, 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.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Johnson Napitulpulu, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ denied Napitulpulu’s asylum application claim as time-barred. Napitulpu-lu does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Napitulpulu failed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.2003), and his claim is further undermined by the safe, continued presence of his similarly situated family members in Indonesia, see Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, Napitulpulu’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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