FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARULAM FERNANDO No. 07-72878
SIMANJUNTAK,
Agency No. A095-629-910
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Marulam Fernando Simanjuntak, 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,
*
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).
RA/Research
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182, n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the harm
Simanjuntak suffered in Indonesia did not rise to the level of past persecution. See
Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 672-63(9th Cir. 2004); see also Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d at 1182 (unfulfilled threats do not amount to past persecution).
In addition, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386
F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004) applies to Simanjuntak, a Batak Christian, he has
not demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha, 319
F.3d at 1184-85. Further, on the record, Simanjuntak failed to establish a pattern
or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Simanjuntak failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution based on his imputed political opinion because his fear is speculative.
See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003).
RA/Research 2 07-72878
Because Simanjuntak 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).
Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Simanjuntak failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be
tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th
Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
RA/Research 3 07-72878