Case Name: Michael Angelo WOWOR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-24
Citations: 294 F. App'x 354
Docket Number: No. 05-72136
Parties: Michael Angelo WOWOR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
Michael Angelo WOWOR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72136.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 24, 2008.
Kaaren L. Ban, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Richard M. Evans, Sada Manickam, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Angelo Wowor, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing an appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ denied Wowor's asylum application as time-barred. Wowor does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of withholding of removal because Wowor did not establish past persecution, or a clear probability of future persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003); Lolong, 484 F.3d at 1179.
Wowor's CAT claim fails because he has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.