FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERDINANDUS HUDI SANTOSA; et No. 07-72593
al.,
Agency Nos. A096-353-196
Petitioners, A096-353-197
A096-353-199
v. A096-353-200
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Fernandus Hudi Santosa and his 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to
establish past persecution because the harassment and discrimination petitioners
experienced as a result of their Christian religion did not rise to the level of
persecution, see id. at 1059-60, and Indonesian authorities were able to control the
protesters at petitioners’ 1999 concert, see Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148,
1154 (9th Cir. 2005). In addition, we reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA
erred because it did not expressly state it considered the harm of their past
experiences in Indonesia cumulatively. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every
contention.”) (internal quotes omitted).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because they did not show
sufficient individualized risk, cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.
2004), and they failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution by forces the
government was unable or unwilling to control, see Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d
1173, 1180 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-72593