FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAMIN TEDJA, No. 09-73460
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-226-729
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Yamin Tedja, 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 applications 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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, Chawla v.
Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Tedja established changed
circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.4(a)(4). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Tedja’s claim for withholding of removal on the basis of his Chinese
ethnicity and Christian religion also fails. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Tedja has not demonstrated the harms he experienced in Indonesia
rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60
(9th Cir. 2009) (beatings, robbery, and threats by mob did not compel a past
persecution finding). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion
that Tedja did not show it is more likely than not he will be persecuted if he returns
to Indonesia. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003); Hakeem
v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (continued presence of similarly situated,
unharmed family members undermined future fear).
Finally, Tedja does not raise any arguments in his opening brief regarding
the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2