FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUCHDY ALDJOKJA, No. 09-73045
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-634-675
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Muchdy Aldjokja, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.
In his application for withholding of removal, Aldjokja claimed that he was
subject to past persecution in Indonesia because of his Chinese ethnicity and
association with Christians. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that
even presuming Aldjokja suffered past persecution, his presumption of future
persecution has been rebutted by a fundamental change in country conditions. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A). The State Department’s
2005 Country Report indicates that there is ongoing discrimination against and
harassment of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, but there has been only one instance of
targeted anti-Chinese violence since 1998. The record also establishes that
religious violence in Indonesia is sporadic and limited to specific geographic
regions. The BIA’s analysis of Aldjokja’s claims was sufficiently individualized.
See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2003).
On prior remand from this court, the BIA properly considered the
application of Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009), to Aldjokja’s
presumption of future persecution. Although the BIA did not apply disfavored
group analysis to Aldjokja’s alternative claim of future persecution under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b)(2), any such analysis would have been pointless. An applicant must
2
adduce at least “some evidence of individualized risk” to establish a sufficient
likelihood of future persecution. Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1065. The IJ’s finding that
Aldjokja failed to show any evidence of individualized risk was supported by
substantial evidence. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180 nn.4-5 (9th
Cir. 2007) (en banc).
Finally, even assuming that Aldjokja did not waive his asylum and CAT
claims, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determinations that his asylum
claim was time-barred and that he failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3