Case ID: f-appx_522/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christony HARAHAP and Chandra Saragih, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70221.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 7, 2013.
    
    Filed June 11, 2013.
    Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.
    
      Lisa Morinelli, Oil, 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: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DU, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Miranda Du, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioners Christony Harahap and Chandra Saragih, natives and citizens of Indonesia, seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of their claims for withholding of removal. Petitioners did not challenge the BIA’s denial of their applications for asylum or for protection under Convention Against Torture; therefore, these claims are waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioners did not suffer past persecution. Petitioners were victims of crime and discrimination at least in part on account of their Christian faith. However, these experiences, considered individually or cumulatively, do not compel the conclusion that Petitioners suffered past persecution. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners are not entitled to withholding of removal based on their disfavored-group status. Petitioners’ “showing of ‘disfavor’ was relatively low, [so] it only slightly offsets the need to show individual risk.” See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir.2009). Petitioners’ individual claims were undercut by their families’ continued residence in Indonesia without harm. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir.2009). Petitioners did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk to show it is more likely than not that they would be persecuted in Indonesia. See 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”).

DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.