NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KUI KHI SIE; PARLINDUNGAN SIMAMORA, Petitioners,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 10-70905 Agency Nos. A096-274-233 A096-274-232

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 5, 2014 Pasadena, California Before: KOZINSKI , Chief Judge, TROTT and CALLAHAN , Circuit Judges. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners don’t qualify for an exception to the one-year filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Petitioners argue that “ext raordinary circumstances” excuse their 

# FILED

JUN 27 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.page 2 delay because they relied on a fraudulent i mmigration consulting organization, the Chinese Indonesian Association (CIAS), to f ile their asylum applications. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). But, unlike Viridianav. Holder , 646 F.3d 1230, 1238–39 (9th Cir. 2011), on which pe titioners rely, they didn’t pay the full fee CIAS requested, didn’t demonstr ate reasonable diligence and unilaterally stopped working with the organization. Even if reliance on CIAS were an ex traordinary circumstance, petitioners’ asylum applications weren’t filed “w ithin a reasonable period.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Sie’s application deadline passed almost nine months before she approached CIAS, and the fact that she didn’t know about the possibility of asylum relief is hardly extraordinary. See Antonio-Martinez v. INS , 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). Simamora did contact CIAS two months before his filing due date, but then he didn’t actually file his application until almost four years after he parted ways with the organization. We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ argument that Simamora’s application shoul d be considered to have been filed at the same time as Sie’s because Sie had liste d Simamora as a derivative beneficiary. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004).page 3 2. The BIA did not err in holding that petitioners didn’t qualify for withholding of removal. That a group of Muslims prevented Simamora from holding a prayer meeting at his house does not rise to the level of persecution, as neither Simamora’s property nor person were threatened or harmed. See Hoxhav. Ashcroft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003); Prasad v. INS , 47 F.3d 336, 339–40 (9th Cir. 1995). Nor was Sie subject to persecution. She testified that in the 1970s, unknown Indonesians burned down her school and family home. She believed an Indonesian was involved with the drowning of her younger brother in 1996, and that her older brother’s death was caused either by his Indonesian boss or natural causes. Sie also testifie d that her nephew was robbed by a group of Indonesians in 2003, almost two years after she left the country. Sie provides no proof that any of these misfortunes resulted from her protected status. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to establish a “clear probability” of future persecution. See Tampubolon v. Holder , 610 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 2010). Alt hough petitioners arguably face a general risk of persecution in Indonesia because th ey are Catholic and Sie is Chinese, they were never specifically targeted or physica lly injured, and their two adult sons are still living in the country, apparently unharmed. See Hakeem v. INS , 273 F.3dpage 4 812, 816–17 (9th Cir. 2001), superseded in part by statute , REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109–13, § 106, 119 Stat. 231.

3. The BIA’s determination that petitioners are ineligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioners argue that Indonesia’s corrupt law enforcement system and intolerant religious environment are conditions warranting CAT relief. But petitioners haven’t presented any evidence of a “par ticularized threat of torture.” See Dhital v. Mukasey , 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted).

PETITION DENIED.