Daniel Kurniawan v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 466 F. App'x 675 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL KURNIAWAN, No. 08-74798
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-740-275
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Kurniawan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
substantial evidence factual findings. 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 Kurniawan’s experiences of
mistreatment, including incidents of robbery and assault, rose to the level of
persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (“discriminatory mistreatment” of Indonesian
Chinese Christian, including beatings and robberies and being accosted by a hostile
mob, did not compel a finding of past persecution); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d
1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding it “significant” in circumstances of case
that petitioner “never suffered any significant physical violence” and concluding
record did not compel a finding of past persecution). Further, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s conclusion that Kurniawan failed to establish an
individualized risk of persecution, even under disfavored-group analysis. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner failed to show he
was individually targeted or likely to be individually targeted where he “failed to
offer any evidence that distinguishes his exposure from those of all other ethnic
Chinese Indonesians”); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, Kurniawan’s asylum claim fails.
2 08-74798
Because Kurniawan failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum,
his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-74798