FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDY WARANKIRAN, No. 08-70965
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-629-969
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Eddy Warankiran, 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 asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Warankiran fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that his asylum claim was time-barred.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the threats
Warankiran heard while at church in September 1985 did not rise to the level of
past persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzalez, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir.
2005). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that the
experiences of Warankiran’s family members still living in Indonesia do not rise to
the level of past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-20 (9th
Cir. 2006); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th Cir. 2003) (no past
persecution where petitioner was only pushed and threatened). Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that Warankiran has not established a clear
probability of persecution because, even under a disfavored group analysis,
Warankiran has not established sufficient evidence of individualized risk. See
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003); Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d at 1066-67 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a
considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence”). Finally, the record
does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern and practice of persecution
2 08-70965
against Christians in Indonesia. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81
(9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Accordingly, we deny Warankiran’s petition as to his
withholding of removal claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70965