Wirasto v. Mukasey

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 18 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BERNARDUS WIRASTO; et al., No. 04-73738 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A96-054-849 A96-054-850 v. A96-054-851 A96-054-852 MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney A96-054-853 General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM * On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 10, 2011 ** Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Bernardus Wirasto and his wife and sons, all natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Wirasto did not establish eligibility for asylum, because the evidence does not compel the conclusion that the criminal proceedings pending against him in Indonesia constituted persecution or were motivated by his actual or imputed political opinion. See Abedini v. U.S., 971 F.2d 188, 191 (9th Cir. 1992). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Wirasto did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal because the evidence does not distinguish the situation the petitioners potentially would face upon return to Indonesia from that experienced by all Christian Indonesians, and the petitioners have not demonstrated the requisite level of individualized risk necessary to compel a finding of a clear probability of future persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 Wirasto has forfeited any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in opening brief are waived). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3