FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2011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
SUBIHANTO HARDJOHUBOJO, No. 09-70359
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-848-573
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.
Subihanto Hardjohubojo, 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
*
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.
Hardjohubojo converted from Islam to Catholicism over 45 years ago and
does not contend he suffered past persecution or that he was ever harmed in
Indonesia on account of his religion. However, based on information he read
online while visiting the United States, he now fears he will be persecuted in the
future by Muslim extremists because of his religion. Substantial evidence supports
the agency’s denial of asylum because a claim based solely on general civil strife
or widespread random violence is not sufficient. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d
1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“a general, undifferentiated claim of
[violence] does not render an alien eligible for asylum”). We reject
Hardjohubojo’s request to remand in light of Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d
1056 (9th Cir. 2010), because he failed to argue to the agency, and does not argue
to the court, that he experienced any harm on account of his religion other than
some discrimination. Accordingly, Hardjohubojo’s asylum claim fails.
Because Hardjohubojo failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum,
his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Hardjohubojo failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70359