FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
INDRA SUDARTO, No. 08-73334
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-806-651
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges
Indra Sudarto, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, 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 factual
findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the
petition for review.
Sudarto does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his asylum
application is time-barred or its denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in
a party’s opening brief are waived).
Sudarto, born and raised a Muslim, contends he suffered mistreatment as a
schoolchild, was threatened for refusing to engage in anti-Christian acts, and fears
future harm because he intends to convert to Christianity. Substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s conclusion that, assuming the truth of Sudarto’s testimony, he
failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability of persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (discrimination and
harassment due to petitioner’s religious beliefs did not compel finding of past
persecution; petitioner’s fear was too speculative to be objectively reasonable);
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats
constituted harassment rather than persecution). Accordingly, Sudarto’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-73334