FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREE SUSANTO, No. 08-71586
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-195-319
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Andree Susanto, 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, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that the attack and robbery
Susanto endured, the incident when individuals banged on the gate to his family’s
property and threw rocks at his home, and the incident when some individuals beat
someone at his church, even when considered cumulatively, rise to the level of
persecution. See id. at 1059-60; Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898, 903-04 (9th Cir.
2004) (finding that where “reasonable minds could differ” on whether a petitioner
has endured persecution, “the record does not compel a finding that it does”). In
addition, even as a member of a disfavored group, the record does not compel the
conclusion that Susanto demonstrated a sufficiently individualized threat of
persecution to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft,
386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, the record also does not compel the
conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against ethnic Chinese
Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly,
Susanto’s asylum claim fails.
Because Susanto failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 08-71586
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Susanto did
not establish a clear probability of torture upon return to Indonesia. See Wakkary,
558 F.3d at 1067-68. Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71586