Case ID: f-appx_551/html/0390-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tjandra NJATA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71618.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2014.
    Kathleen Siok-Sien Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen S. Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.
    Karen L. Melnik, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tjandra Njata, 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, 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 factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Even if Njata were credible, the record does not compel the conclusion that his experiences of discrimination and one random beating rose to the level of past persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir.2009); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (harassment, threats, and one beating did not compel finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Njata failed to establish sufficient individualized risk of harm to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979 (insufficient individualized risk where petitioner “failed to offer any evidence that distinguishes his exposure from those of all other ethnic Chinese Indonesians”). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Because Njata failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, Njata does not raise any arguments regarding the denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

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