T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA NN I E L KU S UMA, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 75181 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 360- 027 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D a nni e l K us um a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e i ve w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n ( “ I J ” ) d e n y i n g h i s ap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and p rot ec t i on un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture 

# FI LED SEP 18 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 75181 2 ( “ C A T ” ) . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or s ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e th e a g e n c y ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s , W

akkaryv. H

older , 558 F . 3d 1 0 4 9 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) , an dw e r e v ie w d e n o v o du e p r o c e s s c la im s , Si m e onov v . A s h c r o ft , 37 1 F . 3d 53 2, 53 5 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). W e deny i n p artand d i sm i ss i n p art th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. T he re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on thatK usum a e st abl i shed changed o re x tr a o r d in aryc ir c u m s tan c e s to e x c u s e h is u n tim e lya s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . See 8 C . F . R . § 1208. 4( a ) ( 4) , ( 5) . A c c or di ngl y , hi s c l a i m f ora s y l um , i nc l udi ng h u m an i t ari an asyl u m , fai l s. T he r e c or d doe s notc om pe l the c onc l us i on tha tK us um a ’ s tr a f f i c a c c i de nt i nvol vi ng aphy s i c a l a l t e r c a t i on w a s on a c c ountof hi s C hi ne s e e thni c i tyor C h r is tian r e lig io n . See P arussim ova v. Mukasey , 555 F . 3d 734, 740 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( “ [ t ] he R e a l I D A c tr e qui r e s tha tapr ot e c t e d gr ound r e pr e s e nt‘ one c e ntr a l r e a s on’ f oran a s y l um appl i c ant ' s pe r s e c ut i on” ) . T he r e c or d a l s o doe s notc om pe l the co n clu sio n th at K u su m a’s o th erex p er ien ce s, in clu d in g th e d am ag e to h is fa th er ’s shop du ri ng the M ay19 98 ri ot s, the st on es throw n athi s hom e duri ng a praye r m e e tin g , an dth e o th e rh ar a s s m e n t h e s u f f e r e d , r o s e to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . See W a kka ry , 5 5 8 F . 3 dat1 0 5 9 -6 0 (b ei n g tw i ce b eat en an dro b b ed , an dacco st edb y a th r e a te n in g m o b d idn o t c o m p e l ap a s t p e r s e c u tio n f in d in g ) ; H

o x h a v . A s h c r o

ft ,08- 75181 3 319 F . 3d 1179, 1182 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( har a s s m e nt , thr e a t s , a nd one be a t i ng di d not c o m p e l f in d in g o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n ) ; S i n gh v . I NS , 13 4 F . 3d 96 2, 96 7– 69 (9th C i r. 1998) ( r e pe a t e d s t oni ng and vanda l i s m of pe t i t i one r ’ s hom e di d notc om pe l f i ndi ng o f p astp ersecu t i o n ). F u rth er, th e assau l to n K u su m a’ s si st er d o es n o test ab l i sh p e r s e c u tio n to K u s u m a . See W a kka ry , 55 8 F . 3d at10 60 . T hu s, subst ant i al ev i d en ce sup p o rt s th e B IA ’ s d et erm i n at i o n th atK u su m a d i dn o test ab l i sh p ast p e r s e c u tio n . S ub st an t i al ev i d en ce al so sup p o rt s th e ag en cy’ s d et erm i n at i o n th at , ev en as a m e m be rof

adi s f a vor e d gr oup, K us um adi d notde m ons tr a t e s uf f i c i e nt in d iv idu a liz e dr is kto e s tab lis h ac le arp r o b ab ilityo f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . Se e H a lim v. H older , 5 9 0 F .3 d9 7 1 , 9 7 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; W a kka ry , 5 5 8 F .3 dat 1 0 6 6 (“[a ]n appl i cantfor w i thh ol di ng of re m ov alw i l l need t o add uce aconsi derabl y l ar ger qu antum of i nd i vi du al i ze d-ri sk evi dence”) . F urther, the re cord do es no tcom pel th e c o n c u ls io n th at th e r e is ap a tte rn o rp r a c tic e o f p e r s e c u tio n a g a in s t e th n ic C h in e s e C h r is tian s in I n d o n e s ia . See W a kka ry , 5 5 8 F . 3 dat1 0 6 0 -6 2 . A cco rd i n g l y, K u s u m a ’s w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im f

a ils . Sub s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e s up p o rt s th e d e n i a l o f CA T r e l i e f

b e c au s e K u s u ma f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h i ti s m or e l i ke l ythan nottha the w oul d be t ortur e d byorw i th the a c q u ie s c e n c e o f

th e I n d o n e s ian g o v e rn m e n t. Se e i d. a t1067- 68.08- 75181 4 K usum a’ s due proces s c on t ent i on s r egar di ng the IJ ’ s deni alof a c on t i nu ance a nd f a i l ur e t o a dm i taw i tne s s s t a t e m e ntf a i l be c aus e he ha s notde m ons tr a t e d the r e q u is ite p r e

ju d ic e . Se e La ta v . I

NS , 204 F . 3d 1241, 1246 ( 9th C i r . 2000) (r equi ri ng prej ud i ce t o p re vai l on a due process chal l enge). F in a lly , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f v o lu n taryd e p artu r e . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 c ( f

) ; Kal i lu v. Mukasey , 548 F . 3d 1215, 1217 n. 1 ( 9th C i r . 2008) (percuri am ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.