Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0802-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rendy SUADY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71326.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 6, 2010.
    
      Armin Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-Distriet 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, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rendy Suady, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 819 F.3d 1179, 1182 n. 4 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ denied Suady’s asylum application claim as time-barred. Suady does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Suady conceded he did not suffer past persecution, and even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004), applies to Christian Indonesians, Suady failed to establish a clear probability of persecution because he did not demonstrate the requisite individualized risk. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1184-85. Finally, the record does not compel the conclusion that Suady established a pattern or practice of persecution of Batak Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Suady failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir.2004).

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