Case ID: f-appx_299/html/0684-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wijaya KESUMA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71051.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
    Cindy S. Chang, Esquire, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wijaya Kesuma, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Kesuma failed to establish past persecution because his experiences in Indonesia, even when considered cumulatively, do not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2004) applies to withholding of removal claims, the record does not compel the conclusion that Kesuma has demonstrated a clear probability of future persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Kesuma’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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