Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8690339
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Purnamawati v. Mukasey
No. 8690339 · Decided October 27, 2008
No. 8690339·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 27, 2008
Citation
No. 8690339
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM *** Silvi Purnamawati'petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, *669 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We dismiss her petition to the extent it rests on asylum, and deny it to the extent it pertains to withholding of removal and CAT protection. Purnamawati argues that she suffered past persecution, and that the IJ erred in failing to find that she established an individualized well-founded fear of future persecution. However, she does not challenge the IJ’s determination (affirmed by the BIA) that her asylum application is time-barred. For this reason, we cannot reach the merits of her petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B). Although Purnamawati also asks us to overturn the BIA’s decision with respect to withholding of removal and CAT, she offers no specific and distinct argument with respect to either. Accordingly, we decline to consider these claims. See Laboa v. Calderon, 224 F.3d 972 , 981 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that “we will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.”). 1 DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . Purnamawati’s asylum-based arguments are unavailing for withholding of removal and CAT relief, as the standards for each are different. To qualify for withholding, an alien must show that it is “more likely than not” that, if removed, her life or freedom would be threatened on account of a protected ground. Fedunyak v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.2007). Likewise, to qualify for CAT relief the applicant must show that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17 (a). Purnamawati cites no evidence in the record that would compel a conclusion contrary to the IJ’s, that she failed to meet her burden of proof.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM *** Silvi Purnamawati'petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, *669 and relief
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM *** Silvi Purnamawati'petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, *669 and relief
02We dismiss her petition to the extent it rests on asylum, and deny it to the extent it pertains to withholding of removal and CAT protection.
03Purnamawati argues that she suffered past persecution, and that the IJ erred in failing to find that she established an individualized well-founded fear of future persecution.
04However, she does not challenge the IJ’s determination (affirmed by the BIA) that her asylum application is time-barred.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM *** Silvi Purnamawati'petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, *669 and relief
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Purnamawati v. Mukasey in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on October 27, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8690339 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.