FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAN GIOK TJAN, No. 07-73532
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-634-706
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.
Tan Giok Tjan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
*
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).
AR/Research
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d
1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial record evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the
mistreatment Tjan suffered while living in Indonesia did not rise to the level of
past persecution. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 965-69 (9th Cir. 1998) (repeated
vandalism of Indo-Fijian’s property, with no physical injury, not persecution);
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and
one beating unconnected with any particular threat did not compel finding that
ethnic Albanian suffered past persecution in Kosovo). Even if the disfavored
group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004),
applies to Tjan, he has not demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of
persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003).
Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Tjan did not
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Lolong v.Gonzales, 484
F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (showing of individualized risk
requires more than a general undifferentiated claim of the type of fears common to
the religious group).
AR/Research 2 07-73532
Because Tjan did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did
not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also supports
the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Tjan failed to establish it is more likely
than not that he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Malhi v. INS, 336
F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003).
Lastly, contrary to Tjan’s contention, the agency’s decisions were supported
by the record and sufficiently reasoned for us to review. See Lopez v. Ashcroft,
366 F.3d 799, 807 (9th Cir. 2004) (agency does not have to write an exegesis on
every contention).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
AR/Research 3 07-73532