FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DJOHAN WIDJONO, No. 10-72192
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-629-803
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Djohan Widjono, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his claim for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009), and review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand,
Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
This case returns to us after remand to the agency to consider Widjono’s
claims in light of our intervening decisions in Wakkary and Halim v. Holder, 590
F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Widjono’s
incident on a bus and experiences during the 1998 riots in Indonesia did not rise to
the level of persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 975-76; Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1059 (“[p]ersecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of
treatment our society regards as offensive”). In addition, the record does not
compel the finding that the attack and robbery Widjono experienced while riding
his motorcycle constituted persecution on account of a protected ground. See
Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that, even under a disfavored group
analysis, Widjono failed to establish a clear probability of future harm to qualify
for withholding of removal. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“An applicant for
withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of
2 10-72192
individualized-risk evidence to prevail[.]”). We reject Widjono’s contention that
the agency’s analysis was insufficient. Consequently, Widjono’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand
Widjono’s case to the IJ. See Romero-Ruiz, 538 F.3d at 1062 (“The BIA abuses its
discretion if its decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-72192