Triono v. Holder , 381 F. App'x 655 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 02 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TRIONO TRIONO,                                   No. 06-72991
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A097-111-349
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Triono Triono, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
    *
    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, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
    (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
    substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Prasad v. INS, 
    47 F.3d 336
    ,
    338-39 (9th Cir. 1995), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in
    immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 
    243 F.3d 510
    , 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny
    in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Triono failed to
    establish past persecution on account of any protected ground in Indonesia. See
    Wakkary v. Holder, 
    558 F.3d 1049
    , 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that
    threats and beating by native Indonesians, without more, did not cumulatively
    amount to past persecution). Further, the record does not compel reversal of the
    agency’s conclusion that Triono failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
    persecution because he did not show that his fear was objectively reasonable. See
    Halim v. Holder, 
    590 F.3d 971
    , 976-80 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not establish the
    requisite objective component of a well-founded fear).
    Because Triono failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
    necessarily follows that he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of
    removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 
    453 F.3d 1182
    , 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
    2                                     06-72991
    Triono does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief in his opening
    brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. Ashcroft, 
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
    (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
    Triono’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by issuing a
    boilerplate decision fails because the BIA’s order contained “a statement of its
    reasons for denying the petitioner relief adequate for us to conduct our review.”
    See Ghaly v. INS, 
    58 F.3d 1425
    , 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). We lack jurisdiction to
    consider Triono’s contention that the IJ’s remarks regarding Triono’s appearance
    violated his due process rights, because he failed to exhaust this contention before
    the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 
    358 F.3d 674
    , 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    3                                    06-72991