Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0326-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yusak ROMPAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71995.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2014.
    Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yusak Rompas, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the harms Rompas experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Rompas failed to provide sufficient evidence of individualized harm to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.2009); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“An 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, Rompas’ -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.