T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T IR IA N N A F R A N S IS K A P A R D E D E ; et a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70760 A ge nc yN os . A 097- 877- 646

A 097- 877- 647 A 097- 877- 663 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I r i a nnaF r a ns i s kaP a r de de a nd tw o of he rc hi l dr e n, na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of Indo nesi a, pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di s m i s s i ng the i rappe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng P a r de de ’ s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe 

# FI LED FEB 25 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70760 2 Co n v e n t i o n A g a i n s tTo rtu r e ( “ CA T” ) . O u rj u r i s d i c t i o n i s g o v e rn e db y8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f

o rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e f a c tu a l f in d in g s , W

akkaryv. H

older , 558 F . 3d 1049, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , a nd w e di s m i s s i n pa rta nd de nyi n pa rtthe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e lac kju risd icti o n to re v iew th e a g en cy ’s d eter m in atio n th at P ar d ed e’s as yl um appl i ca t i on w as un t i m el y, and thatno extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s e xcused the un t i m el y f

i l i ng , because the re l evantfa ct s are i n d i sput e. See R am adan v. G on zales , 47 9 F . 3d 64 6, 65 6-57 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( per c uri am ). I n the i rope ni ng br i e f

, pe t i t i one r s do notr e a s s e rtthe a r gum e nt s the ym a de t o the B I A tha tthe I Jf

a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe a tt e m pt e d r ape of P a r de de i n 1983, a nd th e cu m u l at i v e effect of the inciden t s P ard ed e en d u red i n ev al u at i n g p ast p ersecu t i o n . N o r d o th ey co n t en dth e B IA erred i n fai l i n g t o ad d ress th o se ar gu m ent s. P et i t i on er s a l so do no tra i se any c l ai m base d o n P ar dede’ s i m pu t ed p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e d o n o tc o n s i d e rth e m. See M art i nez- Serran o v. I NS , 94 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 59 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( i ss ues notsupp ort ed by ar gu m entar e deem ed abando ned). I n he rope ni ng br i e f

, P a r de de a r gue s s he e s t abl i s he d he re l i gi bi l i tyf or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al base d o n the coun trycond i t i on s e vi dence thati nd i ca t es r e l i gi ous c l a s he s be tw e e n C hr i s t i a ns a nd M us l i m s s t i l l oc c ur . T he r e c or d doe s not08- 70760 3 c om pe l the c onc l us i on thi s e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t e s ac l e arpr obabi l i tytha tP a r de de w o u ldb e p e r s e c u te d o n a c c o u n t o f h e rC h r is tia n r e lig io n . See L olon g v. G on zales , 484 F . 3d 1173, 1179- 81 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( not i ng the pe t i t i one rdi d nota s s e rts he f e a r e d be i ng i ndi vi dua l l yt a r ge t e d f orpe r s e c ut i on, a nd f

i ndi ng no pa tt e rn or p r a c tic e o f

p e r s e c u tio n a g a in s t e th n ic C h in e s e C h r is tia n s ) ; W akkaryv. H

older , 558 F . 3d 10 49 , 10 56 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). A cc ordi ng l y, P ar dede’ s w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al cl ai m fai l s. S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a l s o s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s f i ndi ng tha tP a r de de di d not e s t abl i s h al i ke l i hood of t ortur e by , a tthe i ns t i ga t i on of , orw i th the c ons e ntor a c q u ie s c e n c e o f

th e I n d o n e s ia n g o v e rn m e n t. See W a kka ry , 558 F . 3d a t1067- 68; V i l legas v. Mukasey , 5 2 3 F . 3 d 9 8 4 , 9 8 8 - 8 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , h e rC AT cl ai m fai l s. F i na l l y , w e de nya s m ootpe t i t i one r s ’ m ot i on t o r e m a nd t o the B I A f or co n si d erat i o n o f th ei r ap p l i cat i o n s t o ad j u stth ei r st atu s. S u b seq u en tt o p et i t i o n ers’ m o t i o n t o th e co u rt , th e B IA d en i ed th ei r p en d i n g m o t i o n t o reo p en b ased o n th o se ap p l i cat i o n s. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.