Court Opinion

ID: 8672490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 00:18:35.814705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:21.858994
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Meyky Panekenan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) 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.
To the extent Panekenan challenges the IJ’s denial of asylum, we lack jurisdiction to review it because Panekenan did not raise it to the BIA.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Panekenan did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal because Panekenan’s experiences in Indonesia did not constitute past persecution. See id. at 1016-18. Furthermore, 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, Panekenan failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not that he will be persecuted if he returned to Indonesia. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003).
Panekenan’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 Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.