Zargaryan v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES HERMANUS RAUW, No. 07-73613
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-356-443
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
James Hermanus Rauw, 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
*
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).
KN/Research
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Rauw failed to
establish the extortion and occupation of his house in Indonesia were motivated,
even in part, on account of a protected ground, see Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d
1166, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2005), and he failed to demonstrate the other incidents
rose to the level of persecution, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th
Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Rauw
does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution because, even if Rauw was
a member of a disfavored group, he failed to demonstrate the requisite
individualized risk of persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th
Cir. 2004). Lastly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Rauw’s
trips outside of the country and willingness to return to Indonesia undermined his
well-founded fear of persecution. See Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir.
2000) (presumption of a nationwide threat of persecution rebutted when petitioner
made three return trips).
KN/Research 2 07-73613
Because Rauw did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows
that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioner failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be
tortured in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
KN/Research 3 07-73613