Sujana v. Holder

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 23 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS ADI SUJANA, No. 06-73666 Petitioner, Agency No. A097-620-784 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. Adi Sujana, 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 * 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). DL/Research relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 924 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the cumulative harm Sujana experienced in Indonesia, including being robbed as a child, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s well-founded fear finding because, even as a member of a disfavored group, Sujana failed to demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. Cf. Sael, 386 F.3d at 927-29. Because Sujana did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily 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). Sujana has not substantively challenged the agency’s denial of CAT relief in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. DL/Research 2 06-73666