FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICOLAAS SUGIARTO SUTANTO; No. 08-73681
IRMA PUTRI WIRAYA,
Agency Nos. A096-351-598
Petitioners, A096-351-599
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Nicolaas Sugiarto Sutanto and Irma Putri Wiraya, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 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.
Sutanto claims he suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of
future persecution on account of his Chinese ethnicity and Christian religion.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the incidents of harassment
and violence experienced by Sutanto do not rise to the level of persecution. See
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and
one beating did not compel finding of past persecution). In addition, the record
does not compel the conclusion that, even as a member of a disfavored group,
Sutanto has shown sufficient individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992)
(noting that “[t]o reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only
supports that conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original); cf. Sael v.
Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition
as to petitioners’ asylum claims.
2 08-73681
Because Sutanto has not met the standard for asylum, he necessarily cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Sutanto does not raise any substantive challenge to the denial of his
CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).
Accordingly, we deny the petition as to this claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-73681