HONG LING, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70657.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012. Filed Sept. 17, 2012.
Anthony Santarelli, Esquire, Law Offices of Anthony Santarelli, Marina Del Rey, CA, for Petitioner. Sunah Lee, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent. Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hong Ling, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ling’s motion to reopen for failure to show a due process violation where Ling did not establish that her former attorney’s alleged actions regarding her birth certificate rendered her proceedings unfair. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 373 (9th Cir. 2010).
We lack jurisdiction to review Ling’s contention that the attorney who represented her before the BIA provided ineffective assistance because she failed to raise the issue before the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (no jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented before the BIA).
Ling’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Henri NABABAN; Harlena Rose Silalahi, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71734.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012. Filed Sept. 17, 2012.
David M. Haghighi, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners. Theodore Charles Hirt, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent. Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Henri Nababan and Harlena Rose Silalahi, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
The record does not compel the conclusion that Nababan established changed circumstances to excuse the delay in filing his asylum application. See
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners did not establish their experiences in Indonesia rose to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (being beaten, robbed of sandals and pocket money, and accosted by a mob did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that even under a disfavored group analysis, petitioners have not demonstrated sufficient individualized risk of persecution to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066. Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners have established eligibility for relief due to their United States citizen children and affiliation with the western world. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, their asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners did not establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured if they return to Indonesia. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, their CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.