FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 21 2011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
JOOTJE JOHANES KAMBEY, No. 08-70891
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-630-202
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jootje Johanes Kambey, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, and we review de novo the agency’s legal
determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
Kambey did not present any evidence or claim that he had been persecuted
in Indonesia. Rather, he testified he feared future persecution due to his
Christianity. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even as a
member of a disfavored group, he failed to establish that he would be targeted for
persecution. See Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2004) (showing
membership in a disfavored group must be “coupled with a showing that [the
asylum applicant], in particular, is likely to be targeted as a member of that
group”); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal
will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence
to prevail”). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that there is a
pattern or practice of persecution against Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary,
558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly, Kambey’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, Kambey has not raised any direct challenge to the agency’s denial of
2 08-70891
CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70891