Case Name: Sofyan TAMPUBOLON, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-26
Citations: 305 F. App'x 368
Docket Number: No. 05-73129
Parties: Sofyan TAMPUBOLON, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
Sofyan TAMPUBOLON, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73129.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 26, 2008.
Farah Loftus, Law Offices of Farah Loftus, Century City, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA. Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carl H. Mcintyre, Jr., Oil, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sofyan Tampubolon, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") 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 Tampubolon has shown changed circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Tampubolon's asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that the two attacks and discrimination suffered by Tampubolon did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004) applies to Christian Indonesians seeking withholding of removal, Tampubolon failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not that he will be persecuted if he returns to Indonesia. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1184-85.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of CAT relief because Tampubolon failed to demonstrate 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.