Case ID: f-appx_294/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Octorico WIDJAJA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70516.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 18, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2008.
    Cindy S. Chang, Esq., Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Octorico Widjaja, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the events that occurred to Widjaja in Indonesia do not rise to the level of past persecution, see id. at 1016-17. In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of a well-founded fear of persecution, because even as a member of a disfavored group, Widjaja has failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on his Chinese ethnicity. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Lastly, the record does not establish that Widjaja demonstrated a pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178-81 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

We do not consider withholding of removal or protection under Convention Against Torture because Widjaja failed to raise these claims in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

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