FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANNIEL KUSUMA, No. 08-75181
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-360-027
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Danniel Kusuma, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for reivew of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review de novo due process claims, Simeonov
v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Kusuma established changed
or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, his claim for asylum, including
humanitarian asylum, fails.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Kusuma’s traffic accident
involving a physical altercation was on account of his Chinese ethnicity or
Christian religion. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’
for an asylum applicant's persecution”). The record also does not compel the
conclusion that Kusuma’s other experiences, including the damage to his father’s
shop during the May 1998 riots, the stones thrown at his home during a prayer
meeting, and the other harassment he suffered, rose to the level of persecution. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (being twice beaten and robbed, and accosted by a
threatening mob did not compel a past persecution finding); Hoxha v. Ashcroft,
2 08-75181
319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and one beating did not
compel finding of past persecution); Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967–69 (9th Cir.
1998) (repeated stoning and vandalism of petitioner’s home did not compel finding
of past persecution). Further, the assault on Kusuma’s sister does not establish
persecution to Kusuma. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060. Thus, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Kusuma did not establish past
persecution.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that, even as a
member of a disfavored group, Kusuma did not demonstrate sufficient
individualized risk to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See Halim
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n
applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger
quantum of individualized-risk evidence”). Further, the record does not compel
the conculsion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against ethnic
Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly,
Kusuma’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief because Kusuma
failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of the Indonesian government. See id. at 1067-68.
3 08-75181
Kusuma’s due process contentions regarding the IJ’s denial of a continuance
and failure to admit a witness statement fail because he has not demonstrated the
requisite prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of voluntary departure. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Kalilu v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1215, 1217 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008)
(per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
4 08-75181