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 pane l unani 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 ar 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 I MAN C OK R O Y OE L I KO ; I MAM T AU F I K Y OE L I KO , 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. 09- 70697 A ge nc yN os . A 095- 634- 699

A 095- 629- 936 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t11, 2011 ** B e f o r e : T H O M A S , S I L V E R M A N , an dC L I F T O N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . I m an C okr o Y oe l i ko and I m a m T auf i k Y oe l i ko, na t i ve s and 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 d is m is s in g th e irap p e a l f r o m an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g th e ir appl i c a t i ons f

orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l and pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on



# FI LED AU G 16 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 70697 2 A g a in s t T o rtu r e ( “C A T ” ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l 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 , 5 5 8 F . 3 d1 0 4 9 , 1 0 5 6 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ), an dw e rev i ew d e n o v o du e p ro cess cl ai m s, Ibarra-Flores v. G on zales , 439 F . 3d 614, 620 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . W e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e rej ectp et i t i o n ers’ co n t en t i o n th atth e ag en cy v i o l at edth ei r du e p ro cess r ig h ts . Se e La ta v . I

NS , 204 F . 3d 1241, 1246 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( r e qui r i ng e rr orand prej ud i ce t o p re vai l on du e proces s c l ai m ). T he re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on thatpet i t i on er s e xp er i ence d h arm s in I n d o n e s iath a t r is e to th e le v e l o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . See W a kka ry , 558 F . 3d a t1059- 60 ( be i ng tw i c e be a t e n, r obbe d, and a c c os t e d byathr e a t e ni ng m ob d idn o t c o m p e l ap a s t p e r s e c u tio n f in d in g ) ; H

o x h a v . A s h c r o

ft , 319 F . 3d 1179, 1182 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( har a s s m e nt , thr e a t s , and one be a t i ng di d notc om pe l f i ndi ng o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n ) ; S i n gh v . I NS , 13 4 F . 3d 96 2, 96 5-69 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( re peat ed st o n i n g an dv an d al i sm o f p et i t i o n er’ s h o m e d i dn o tco m p el fi n d i n g o f p ast pe r s e c ut i on) . I n a ddi t i on, e ve n a s m e m be r s of adi s f a vor e d gr oup, pe t i t i ons ha ve nots how n s uf

f i c i e nti ndi vi dua l i z e d r i s k t o e s t abl i s h ac l e arpr obabi l i tyof p e r s e c u tio n in I n d o n e s ia . Se e H ox ha , 3 1 9 F .3 da t 1 1 8 5 ; W a kka ry , 55 8 F . 3d at 10 66 (“ [a ] n app l i cantfor w i thh ol di ng of re m ov alw i l l need t o add uce a09- 70697 3 co n si d erab l y l arg er q u an tu m o f i n d i v i du al i zed -ri skev i d en ce”). A cco rd i n g l y, p e titio n e r s ’ w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. F i nal l y, subst ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s deni alof C A T re l i ef be c aus e pe t i t i one r s f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h i ti s m or e l i ke l ythan nottha tthe yw oul d be to rtu r e din I n d o n e s iab yo rw ith th e a c q u ie s c e n c e o f th e g o v e rn m e n t. See W a kka ry , 558 F . 3d a t1068. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.