U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2011

Marisa Wisnubroto v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Marisa Wisnubroto v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 5, 2011 · Rymer, Ikuta, Smith
445 F. App'x 973

Counsel

Catherine Susan Willmore, Esquire, Law Office of Catherine Willmore, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners., Oil, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Sada Manickam, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

Marisa Wisnubroto v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Marisa Setyawati Wisnubroto, and her family, 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 application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners’ experiences, in-eluding the threatening phone calls they received, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60. However, in assessing petitioners’ future fear, as ethnically Javanese Evangelical Christians, the BIA did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for the BIA to consider petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims under the disfavored group analysis in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

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.