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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2012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
WEIRIANTO, a.k.a. Chen Ce Ming, No. 08-72309
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-690-664
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.
Weirianto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
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.
Weirianto does not challenge the agency’s finding that he failed to timely
file his asylum application or demonstrate that he qualifies for an exception to the
time bar. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). Accordingly, his
asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the incident where
two individuals smashed Weirianto’s car window, injuring his hand, does not
constitute persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60; Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319
F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats and one incident of physical
violence did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s conclusion that Weirianto failed to demonstrate a clear
probability of future persecution, because even under a disfavored group analysis,
he hasn’t shown a sufficient individualized risk of harm. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at
1184-85; 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
08-72309
evidence to prevail than would an asylum applicant”). Accordingly, Weirianto’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
08-72309