U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008

Tenda v. Mukasey

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided November 3, 2008 · Hawkins, Rawlinson, Smith

299 F. App'x 635

Counsel

Kaaren L. Barr, Esquire, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner., District Director, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Terri Leon-Benner, Esquire, Trial, Oil, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Glenny Tenda v. Eric Holder, Jr. (9th Cir. 2013)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Glenny Nicholas Tenda, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from *636an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we review for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA denied Tenda’s asylum application as time barred. Tenda does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.

Tenda does not contend that he suffered past persecution, only that he has a fear of future persecution. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal because, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2004) applies to Indonesian Christians seeking withholding of removal, Tenda has not established a clear probability of future persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, Tenda failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Tenda did not establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122 (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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.