Case ID: f-appx_411/html/0100-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yodi Hilco Balti HULISELIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71878.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 21, 2011.
    Armin Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Song E. Park, Rosanne M. Perry, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, 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: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yodi Hilco Balti Huliselian, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA denied Huliselian’s asylum claim as time-barred. Huliselian does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Huliselian failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be persecuted based on the harms inflicted upon his uncles. See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir.1991) (requiring “pattern of persecution closely tied to the petitioner” where violence against family members is basis of claim). Accordingly, Huliselian’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Huliselian’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkmy, 558 F.Sd at 1068.

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.