Case Name: Johnny MASLI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-30
Citations: 389 F. App'x 740
Docket Number: No. 07-74432
Parties: Johnny MASLI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 740–741

Head Matter:
Johnny MASLI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74432.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed July 30, 2010.
Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Walter Manning Evans, Esquire, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Johnny Masli, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed circumstances excused the untimely filing of Masli's asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646; 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, Masli's asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of withholding of removal because Masli's experiences of threats and a robbery did not rise to the level of past persecution, see Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-18, and Masli failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be persecuted as a moderate Muslim or as an Americanized Indonesian, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's determination that Masli is not entitled to CAT relief because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir.2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.