FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYAHRI JAYA HASURUNGAN, No. 11-73633
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-270-035
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013 **
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Syahri Jaya Hasurungan, 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 and
*
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).
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and we review de novo the
agency’s legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Hasurungan established
changed circumstances in Indonesia to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the 1993 incident did
not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059 (“Persecution is
an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society
regards as offensive.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and one
beating did not compel finding of past persecution). In addition, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even under a disfavored group
analysis, Hasurungan failed to establish a sufficient individualized risk of harm to
show it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted in Indonesia. See Halim
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n
applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger
2 11-73633
quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum
applicant”). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73633