Case ID: f-appx_381/html/0711-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rolly Stevanes ENOCH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72242.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 4, 2010.
    Ebby S. Bakhtiar, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sarah Maloney, Corey L. Farrell, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., 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: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roily Stevanes Enoch, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Enoch did not allege that he experienced past persecution or any harm in Indonesia. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Enoch did not establish a clear probability of persecution on account of his Christian religion, see Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), or his status as a publisher of a Christian newsletter, see Fakhry, 524 F.3d at 1066. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Enoch failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir.2009).

Enoch does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum application as time-barred or the denial of his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

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