Case Name: Lefina Maria DOTULUNG; Arnold Alexander Kindangen, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-04
Citations: 316 F. App'x 546
Docket Number: No. 05-73232
Parties: Lefina Maria DOTULUNG; Arnold Alexander Kindangen, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 316
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
Lefina Maria DOTULUNG; Arnold Alexander Kindangen, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73232.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
Filed Sept. 4, 2008.
Joseph S. Porta, Law Offices of Cohen Porta & Kim, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kathryn M. McKinney, Arthur L. Rabin, Mark Christopher Walters, Esq., Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lefina Maria Dotulung and her hus band, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that extraordinary or changed circumstances excused the untimely filing of petitioners' asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)(5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). As a result, the petitioners are not eligible for asylum.
We do not consider withholding of removal or CAT protection because the petitioners concede in their opening brief that they are not eligible for these grounds of relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.