Rondonuwu v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENNY RONDONUWU, No. 22-953
Agency No.
Petitioner, A200-991-916
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 11, 2023 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Henny Rondonuwu, a native and citizen of Indonesia, conceded
removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). She seeks review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an
Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.
Rondonuwu did not mention suffering any physical mistreatment when
describing perceived incidents of persecution in her application materials. But
when Rondonuwu appeared before the IJ, she testified that she was subjected to
numerous incidents of domestic violence because of her Christian beliefs. The
IJ “provid[ed] specific and cogent reasons” to support its finding that
Rondonuwu lacked credibility because of her inconsistent testimony. Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Malkandi v. Holder,
576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009)). And nothing in the record otherwise
compels the conclusion that Rondonuwu is credible. See Khadka v. Holder, 618
F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Rondonuwu has failed to produce any
credible evidence that she has faced, or will face, an individualized risk of
persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2009)
(requiring some “specifically individualized evidence” even where petitioner is
a member of a disfavored group). And the remainder of the record does not
compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Rondonuwu will be
tortured. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49.
PETITION DENIED.
2