FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIDWAN DJUNARDI WIDJAJA, No. 10-71382
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-360-112
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Ridwan Djunardi Widjaja, 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 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 and review de novo questions of
law. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Widjaja established changed
circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4)(i). We lack jurisdiction to review Widjaja’s claim that his
acquisition of Western interests while living in the United States constitutes further
changed circumstances because he failed to present this argument to the BIA. See
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, his asylum
claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Widjaja’s experiences
in Indonesia, including being robbed and beaten on two occasions, do not rise to
the level of past persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060 (“We cannot say . . .
that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude that these experiences,
without more, cumulatively amount to past persecution.”) (citations and internal
quotations omitted). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that, even as a member of a disfavored group, Widjaja has not
established that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted in Indonesia
2
because he has not demonstrated sufficient individualized risk. 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 to prevail than would an asylum
applicant”).
Finally, the BIA’s determination that Widjaja was not eligible for CAT relief
is also supported by substantial evidence because Widjaja did not establish that he
is “more likely than not to be tortured” if he returns to Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(4); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3