FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WYNNIE TANDIONO, No. 08-71862
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-079-923
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr.,
Attorney General of the United States
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 19, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and VANCE, Chief District Judge.**
Wynnie Tandiono, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of the
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that vacated the immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Sarah S. Vance, Chief District Judge for the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
judge’s grant of asylum and denied withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence.
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for
review.
First, Tandiono argues that she suffered past persecution in Indonesia.
Tandiono did not appeal the immigration judge’s adverse finding on this issue to
the BIA, and the BIA did not address the question. Accordingly, Tandiono failed
to exhaust this claim, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Second, we find that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that
Tandiono’s fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable. The BIA did
not err in finding that Tandiono failed to establish a pattern or practice of
persecution against Chinese Christians in Indonesia, as the record does not compel
a conclusion “that the Indonesian government is unable or unwilling to control the
perpetrators of [the] violence” against Chinese Christians. Lolong v. Gonzales,
484 F.3d 1173, 1180 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Further, we have jurisdiction to
consider Tandiono’s claim that she faces an individualized risk of persecution if
she returns to Indonesia, because the BIA addressed this issue even though
Tandiono did not raise it on appeal to the BIA. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050,
1055 (9th Cir. 2010); Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). In
this regard, even under a disfavored group analysis, the petitioner did not show
sufficient individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.
See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-79 (9th Cir. 2009) (showing of
individualized risk insufficient when petitioner failed to offer evidence to
distinguish his risk of harm from that of other ethnic Chinese Indonesians); cf. Sael
v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, the petitioner abandoned her CAT claim because she did not support
her claim with argument. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir.
2008); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.