Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0688-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Susana JANUAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73046.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Decided April 20, 2012.
    Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ali Manuchehry, Esquire, Jennifer Paisner Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Susana Januar, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Januar did not experience harms in Indonesia that rise to the level of past persecution. See id. at 1059-60; see also Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, even as a member of a disfavored group, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Januar has not established a clear probability of persecution in Indonesia, because she has not demonstrated sufficient individualized risk, see Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1185; 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”), and has not shown that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christians, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly, Januar’s withholding of removal claim fails.

We grant Cindy S. Chang’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Januar.

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