Thi 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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CA T I ON UN I TE D STATE S COURT OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CI RCUI T S AMUE L M US AK R AN T UN G, P et i t i o n er, v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e y G e n e ra l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73076 A ge nc y N o. A 096- 351- 718 M E M OR AN DU M *

HA NA LI M BAT, P et i t i o n er, v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e y G e n e ra l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73085 A ge nc y N o. A 096- 351- 717

O n Pet i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ard o f I m m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls 

# FI L ED DEC 27 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U . S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALSThe pane l unani m ous l y c 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 p p . P . 3 4 (a) (2). 09- 73076 2 Subm i tt e d D e c e m be r14, 2010 ** B efore: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcuitJu d g es. I n the s e c ons ol i da t e d c a s e s , H anaLi m ba tand Sam ue l M us a k R antung, na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of

I ndone s i a , pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A p p eal s’ ( “B IA ”) ord er dism i ssi n g th ei r app eal fr o m an i m m i g rat i o n j u d g e’s de c i s i on de nyi ng Li m ba t ’ s appl i c a t i on f ora s yl um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and r e l i e f unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tTortur e ( “CA T”) (N o. 09- 73085) , and the B I A ’ s or de rde nyi ng R antung’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs (N o. 09- 73 07 6). W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew f or s ub st ant i al e v id e n c e th e a g e n c y ’ s 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) , w e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n, and w e r e vi e w de novo due pr oc e s s c l a i m s , i nc l udi ng i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of c o u n s e l c la im s , R am v. Mukasey , 5 2 9 F .3 d1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e de ny b o th p e t i t i o n s f

o rr e v i e w. W i th r e s pe c tt o N o. 09- 73085, the r e c or d doe s notc om pe l the c onc l us i on tha tc hange d ore xtr a or di nary c i r c um s t anc e s e xc us e d the unt i m e l y f i l i ng of L im b a t’ s a s y lu m ap p li c a ti o n . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .4 (a )( 4 ), (5 ); R am adan v.09- 73076 3 G on zales , 4 7 9 F .3 d6 4 6 , 6 5 6 -5 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e r c u ria m ); T am pu bo lon v. H older , 610 F. 3d 1056, 1059 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( c a s e l aw de c i de d s ubs e que ntt o the filin g o f a n a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n is n o t ac h an g e dc irc u m s tan c e th a t e x c u s e s u n tim e ly f i l i ng) . W e r e

j e c tLi m ba t ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe a ge nc y vi ol a t e d he rr i ght s by r e f us i ng t o e qui t abl y t ol l the t i m e l i m i t a t i on f orf i l i ng he ra s yl um appl i c a t i on. See H e rn a n dez -Mez q u ita v . A s h c r o ft , 293 F. 3d 1161, 1163- 65 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( r e j e c t i ng e qua l pr ot e c t i on c ha l l e nge t o s t a tut ory t i m e l i m i t a t i on w he r e l i m i t a t i on s e rve d ar a t i ona l purpos e ; r e qui r i ng e rr orf ordue pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on) . A c c or di ngl y, L i m b at ’s asylum cl ai m fai l s. S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’s det erm i nat i on thatL i m batf ai l ed t o est ab l i sh p astp ersecuti o n b ecau se th e h arm s sh e p erson al l y su ff ered d i dn o tri se to th e le v e l o f

p e r s e c u ti o n , see W

a kka ry , 55 8 F . 3dat10 59 - 60 , and the r ec ord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on thatherf atherw as per se cut ed on ac coun tof aprot ec t ed gr ound, s e e Pa da s h v . I NS , 358 F. 3d 1161, 1166- 67 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( pe t i t i on d en i edi n p artb ecau se n o ev i d en ce i n ci d en t s w ere part of a patt ern o f harm ag ai n st pet i t i on er ’ s f

am i l y o n the basi s of

r el i gi on ) . E ven as am em berof adi sf avore d gr oup, the r e c or d doe s notc om pe l the c onc l us i on tha tLi m ba te s t abl i s he d s uf f i c i e nt in d iv id u a li z e dr is kto s h o w ac le arp r o b ab il ity o f p e r s e c u ti o n . See W

a kka ry , 558 F . 3d at10 66 ( “A n app l i cantf or w i thh ol di ng of r em ov alw i l l need t o add uce a09- 73076 4 co n si d erably larger qu an tu m o f i n d i v i du al i zed -r i skev i d en ce t o p revail ”). T h u s, L i m b at ’s w i th h o l d i n g o f r em o v al cl ai m fai l s. S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e a ls o s up p o rts th e a g e n c y ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t L im b a t is note l i gi bl e f

orC A T r e l i e f

be c aus e s he f

a i l e d t o s how i ti s m or e l i ke l y than nots he w o u ld b e to rtu r e dif

r e m o v e dto I n d o n e s ia . Se e id. a t1067- 68. W ith re s p e c t to N o . 0 9 -7 3 0 7 6 , th e B IA d idn o t ab u s e its d is c re tio n in deny i ng R antun g’s m ot i on t o re op en as un t i m el y b ec ause R antun g fi l ed i tov erf i ve y e ar s a f te rth e B I A is s u e dit s f

in a l r e m o v a l o r d e r , se e 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , and R an tu n g an dfa ile dto s ub m it m a te ria l e v id e n c e o f c h an g e dc irc u m s tan c e s in I n d o n e s iath a t w o u ld e x c u s e th e la te f il in g , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 3 )( ii); see a l so M a ltyv . A s h c r o

ft , 3 8 1 F .3 d9 4 2 , 9 4 5 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) ( re q u irin g c irc u m s tan c e s to h a v e c h an g e ds u ff

ic ie n tly th a t ap e titio n e r w h o p re v io u s ly d idn o t h a v e ale g itim a te cl ai m for asy l u m n o w h as a w el l -f o u n d edfear o f f

u tu re persecu t i o n ). Fi na l l y, the B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de nyi ng R antung’ s m ot i on t o reop en b asedo n i n eff ect i v e assi st an ce o f cou n sel , b ecau se h e d i dn o test ab l i sh h e w a s p r e

ju d ic e db y c o u n s e l’ s a c ti o n s . Se e I tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F. 3d 889, 9 0 1 - 9 0 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . No . 0 9 - 7 3 0 8 5 : P E T I T I ON F OR R E VI E W DE NI E D. No . 0 9 - 7 3 0 7 6 : P E T I T I ON F OR R E VI E W DE NI E D.