Case ID: f-appx_511/html/0672-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edwin Gilbert WATUNG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71755.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed March 19, 2013.
    Melanie Meie Yang, Esquire, Law Offices of Melanie M. Yang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, David Schor, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we reject Watung’s request for oral argument.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edwin Gilbert Watung, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have 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 BIA’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Watung failed to present sufficient evidence of individualized risk to establish it is more likely than not he will be persecuted in Indonesia. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979-80 (9th Cir.2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum applicant”). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.