Case ID: f-appx_386/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rudolf POJOH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75148.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 11, 2010.
    
    Filed July 7, 2010.
    Ebby S. Bakhtiar, Esquire, David M. Haghighi, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los An-geles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John D. Williams, Esquire, Michael Christopher Heyse, Michael P. Linderman, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner, Rudolph Pojoh, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).

Petitioner’s application for asylum is time-barred. Petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimeliness. Therefore, this court affirms the BIA’s decision denying his application for asylum.

We have recently held that the BIA should review withholding of removal cases under the same disfavored group analysis applied in reviewing asylum applications. See Tampubolon v. Holder, 598 F.3d 521, 527 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that the court must remand to the BIA “for it to determine whether the combination of disfavored group evidence and evidence of individualized risk is sufficient to establish a clear probability that petitioners will be persecuted if removed to Indonesia”). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA to evaluate petitioner’s withholding of removal claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED AND REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL DECISION. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.