FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL RIBOWO, No. 11-70952
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-020-413
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Ribowo, 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 the
agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we deny the petition for review.
Ribowo does not contest the BIA’s finding that he failed to show past
persecution. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). As to future fear,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that even under a disfavored
group analysis, Ribowo has not demonstrated sufficient individualized risk of
persecution to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1066. We reject Ribowo’s contentions that the BIA applied the incorrect standard
to his asylum claim and that the BIA did not adequately consider his claim under a
disfavored group analysis. We do not address Ribowo’s contentions regarding the
one year time bar because the BIA did not make any findings on this issue.
Accordingly, Ribowo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Ribowo did not
establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Ribowo’s
contention that the BIA’s analysis of his CAT claim was inadequate. See
2 11-70952
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not
overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-70952