Eko Setyawan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EKO SETYAWAN, No. 09-71317
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-634-622
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN , and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Eko Setyawan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo
its legal conclusions. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Setyawan does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his
application for asylum was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Setyawan does not contend he suffered past persecution, but fears future
persecution because unknown assailants sexually assaulted his daughter and
burned down his brother’s church. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
finding that he does not have a clear probability of future persecution because he
did not establish he faces any particular threat. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2009) (a withholding of removal applicant must establish
that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution on one of the
specified grounds). We reject Setyawan’s contention that the BIA erred in not
referencing Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2004), because the BIA
analyzed his claim under a disfavored group analysis. Accordingly, Setyawan’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
09-71317
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s claim that the IJ applies
different standards of proof to different cases in a way favorable to the government
because petitioner did not raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
09-71317