Rumapea v. Holder

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
DEMAK WALDERMAN RUMAPEA, No. 07-74596
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-427-720
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Demak Walderman Rumapea, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
*
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
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial
evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), we dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Rumapea’s past persecution claim because it
was not exhausted before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78
(9th Cir. 2004).
Even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d
922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004) applied to Batak Christian Indonesians, Rumapea
failed to establish a clear probability of persecution because he did not demonstrate
an individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2003); Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2007)
(objective well-founded fear not established because applicant made a general,
undifferentiated claim). Finally, the record does not compel the conclusion that
Rumapea established a pattern or practice of persecution of Batak Christians in
Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061. Accordingly, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s finding that Rumapea failed to establish it is more likely than
not that he will suffer persecution in Indonesia. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1185.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
KN/Research 2 07-74596