Charly Chayimin v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 479 F. App'x 89 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2012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
CHARLY CHAYIMIN, No. 10-70423
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-464-006
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012 **
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Charly Chayimin, 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, withholding of
removal, and protection 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Chayimin failed to
establish that the marketplace fire that destroyed his parents’ shop was deliberate
or motivated by a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734,
742 (9th Cir. 2009); Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998) (petitioner
must establish mistreatment was targeted particularly towards him and occurred
because of racial or religious animus). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that Chayimin’s experiences in Indonesia, including harassment
and beatings when he was a child, extortion of his parents, and a robbery of his
mother, 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 agency’s determination that, even as a member of a disfavored group,
Chayimin has not established a well-founded fear of persecution in Indonesia
because he has not demonstrated sufficient individualized risk. See Halim v.
2 10-70423
Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Chayimin’s asylum claim
fails.
Because Chayimin failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Singh,
134 F.3d at 971.
To the extent Chayimin contends that the agency erred by failing to consider
his country conditions evidence, he has not overcome the presumption that the
agency reviewed the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96
(9th Cir. 2000).
Finally, Chayimin does not raise any argument challenging the denial of his
CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-70423