Case ID: f-appx_309/html/0157-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jeldy Rony WAAS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72728.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2009.
    Armin SkalmowsM, 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, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jeldy Rony Waas, 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 withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Waas’s problems in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1016-18; Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995) (concluding that arrest, interrogation, brief detention, and beating did not compel finding of past persecution). Further, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.2004), applies in the context of withholding of removal, Waas has not demonstrated a clear probability of future persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Waas’s withholding of removal claim.

Because Waas has not “specifically and distinctly argued” the issue of CAT relief, we do not address it. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

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