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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2012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
JULIAN YACOB PARASIAN, No. 09-71785
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-497-428
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.
Julian Yacob Parasian, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gormley
v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if Parasian
were credible and had established harm rising to the level of persecution, he failed
to show that the harm he suffered in Indonesia was on account of a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-84 (1992) (evidence must
compel the conclusion persecutors are motivated by a protected ground);
Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir. 1998) (concluding petitioners
failed to show extortion was on account of an enumerated ground). In addition, the
record does not compel the conclusion that Parasian established a well-founded
fear of future persecution because, even as a member of a disfavored group,
Parasian did not present evidence of individualized risk. See Lolong v. Gonzales,
484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Further, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Parasian did not demonstrate a pattern or
practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Parasian’s asylum claim fails.
2 09-71785
Because Parasian did not establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Parasian’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068.
We grant the government’s motion to strike the appendix from Parasian’s
opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the
court may not consider evidence that is not part of the administrative record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-71785