1

The BIA adopted and affirmed the decision of the IJ, adding its own reasoning.

We therefore review both the decisions. Krasnopivtsev v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 832,

837 (8th Cir. 2004). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3375

___________

Reflie Perti Pangau, * 

*

Petitioner, * 

 * Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

 * Immigration Appeals.

Peter Keisler, Acting Attorney General * 

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Respondent. * 

___________

Submitted: September 28, 2007

 Filed: October 5, 2007

 ____________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

 ____________

PER CURIAM. 

Reflie Perti Pangau, an Indonesian citizen, petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge's denial of

his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT).1

 We deny the petition. 
-2-

Pangau contends that he is entitled to asylum and related relief because of a

well founded fear that he will be persecuted in Indonesia on account of his practice

of Christianity. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances or a change in

eligibility, an applicant is not entitled to asylum unless he can demonstrate by clear

and convincing evidence that his application was filed within one year of the date of

his arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). The BIA determined

that Pangau's lack of familiarity with asylum procedures, his inability to speak

English, and the fact that he did not know anyone in the United States are not the kind

of extraordinary circumstances which would justify his admittedly late filing. See id.

§ 1158(a)(2)(D). We lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary factual

determination. Id. § 1158(a)(3); Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir.

2001). To the extent that Pangau makes a purely legal argument that the United States

is obligated under international law to accept his untimely application, we reject this

argument as without merit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (limit on judicial review

does not apply to questions of law); Purwantono v. Gonzales, No. 06-2083, 2007 U.S.

App. LEXIS 19552, at *4-5 (8th Cir. Aug. 17, 2007) (rejecting similar challenge to

filing deadline).

Pangau also challenges the denial of his application for withholding of removal,

which he need not have filed within one year of entry. See Molathwa v. Ashcroft, 390

F.3d 551, 553-54 (8th Cir. 2004). The IJ determined – and the BIA affirmed – that

Pangau had not established that he will more likely than not be persecuted on account

of his religion if returned to Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). We conclude that

the decisions of the IJ and BIA are supported by substantial evidence on the

administrative record as a whole. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83

(8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). The IJ did not find credible Pangau's testimony

about two incidents of violence at the hands of Muslim extremists in 1998, noting

several omissions and unexplained discrepancies between his testimony and affidavit.

We will not upset this determination. See Gemechu v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 944, 947-48

(8th Cir. 2004) (IJ's credibility findings are entitled to deference if supported by
-3-

specific, cogent reasons). That members of Pangau's family, also practicing

Christians, live in Indonesia unharmed further undermines the reasonableness of his

fear of future persecution. Krasnopivtsev, 382 F.3d at 839. Having found his

testimony of past persecution not credible, the IJ reasonably determined that Pangau

failed to establish a clear probability of persecution. See id. (noting that harassment

does not constitute persecution).

Finally, Pangau argues that the BIA erred in failing to grant him deferral of

removal under CAT. Relief under CAT is available only if the anticipated harm is

"inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public

official or other person acting in an official capacity." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).

Pangau failed to present evidence that the government acquiesced to the two 1998

incidents, both of which he failed to report to the authorities, or that it generally

acquiesces to the torture of Christians. We cannot say that the evidence presented by

Pangau, including his discredited testimony, would compel a reasonable factfinder to

conclude that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to

Indonesia. See Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 992 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of

review). 

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.

______________________________