FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEVID EDUARD ARNOLUS No. 08-72093
RUMBAYAN,
Agency No. A096-499-889
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 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Devid Eduard Arnolus Rumbayan, 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
*
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).
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo legal
determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
Rumbayan does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his
asylum application is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived). Accordingly, Rumbayan’s asylum claim fails.
Rumbayan testified that he was never injured in Indonesia on account of his
race or religion, and does not contend he suffered past persecution, but he argues
he fears future persecution on the basis of his Christian faith and his marriage to an
ethnic Chinese Christian woman. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that Rumbayan failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future
persecution because he does not present sufficient evidence of an individualized
risk of harm. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2007) (“a
general, undifferentiated claim” does not suffice); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60
(“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably
larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum
applicant”). Therefore, Rumbayan’s withholding of removal claim fails.
08-72093
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
08-72093