FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRIONO TRIONO, No. 06-72991
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-111-349
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Triono Triono, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336,
338-39 (9th Cir. 1995), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Triono failed to
establish past persecution on account of any protected ground in Indonesia. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that
threats and beating by native Indonesians, without more, did not cumulatively
amount to past persecution). Further, the record does not compel reversal of the
agency’s conclusion that Triono failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
persecution because he did not show that his fear was objectively reasonable. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976-80 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not establish the
requisite objective component of a well-founded fear).
Because Triono failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
necessarily follows that he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 06-72991
Triono does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief in his opening
brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. Ashcroft, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
Triono’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by issuing a
boilerplate decision fails because the BIA’s order contained “a statement of its
reasons for denying the petitioner relief adequate for us to conduct our review.”
See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). We lack jurisdiction to
consider Triono’s contention that the IJ’s remarks regarding Triono’s appearance
violated his due process rights, because he failed to exhaust this contention before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 06-72991