NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
HENRY HENDARSIN GUNAWAN, No. 05-77432 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-575-492
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., United States
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 28, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and KAPLAN,*** Senior District
Judge.
*
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 Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, Senior United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Henry Hendarsin Gunawan, 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 denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction to review this petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal determinations de
novo. See, e.g., Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny
Gunawan’s petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Gunawan’s past
experiences in Indonesia, taken cumulatively, do not rise to the level of persecution.
See id. at 1060 (holding that, although Wakkary had been beaten and robbed on two
occasions and accosted by a hostile mob, the evidence did not compel a conclusion
of past persecution); see also Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009)
(noting that incidents which included being forced to strip naked by students and
being beaten by a mob of anti-Chinese rioters, along with other examples of
mistreatment, did not compel a finding of past persecution).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gunawan failed
to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution also. See, e.g., Lolong v. Gonzales,
484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (holding that “general, undifferentiated
2
claim . . . does not render an alien eligible for asylum”). Although the record shows
that Gunawan is a member of a disfavored group, it does not compel the conclusion
that he established a well-founded fear of persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d
922, 927 (9th Cir. 2004).
Further, as Gunawan failed to show the well-founded fear of persecution
required for asylum, he necessarily failed to show the clear probability of persecution
required for withholding of removal. See, e.g., Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1190 (9th Cir. 2006); Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).
As Gunawan did not raise any arguments regarding the agency’s denial of CAT
relief, those claims are deemed abandoned. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
Finally, because Gunawan did not seek review of the BIA’s March 2, 2006,
denial of his motion for reconsideration, this court lacks jurisdiction to review it. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004) (per
curiam) (noting that the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider is a separate action that
must be appealed separately for this court to have jurisdiction).
Petition for review DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
3