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 pa ne 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 S AD I KIN B UD I MAN, 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 os . 07- 71969 07- 73638 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 338- 145

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 a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S adi ki n B ud i m an, nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I nd on es i a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of a 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 m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) ( N o. 07- 

# FI LED OC T 28 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 71969 2 7 1 9 6 9 ) . B u d im a n a ls o p e titio n s f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r( N o . 0 7 - 7 3 6 3 8 ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs u b s tan tia l e v id e n c e f a c tu a l f in d in g s . I

N S v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 5 0 2 U . S. 47 8, 48 1 & n. 1 (19 92 ). W e r evi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the B IA ’ s deni alof a m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n , a n dd e n o v o its d e te rm in a tio n o f p u r e lyle g a l q u e s tio n s . Ca n o -Me r i da v . I

NS , 31 1 F . 3d 96 0, 96 4 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). W e deny the consol i dat ed p e titio n s f

o rr e v ie w . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s f i ndi ng tha tB udi m a n di d not s u f f e rh a rm th a t r is e s to th e le v e l o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . See G u v. G on zales , 454 F . 3d 10 14 , 10 19 -20 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). F urthe r , e ve n a s am e m be rof adi s f a vor e d gr oup, B udi m a n ha s not est ab l i sh eda w el l -fo u n d edfear o f fu tu re p ersecu t i o n o n acco u n to f h i s C h i n ese e thni c i tybe c aus e he f

a i l e d t o de m ons tr at e tha the f a c e s a n i ndi vi dua l i z e d r i s k of h a rm . Se e Sa e l v . A s h c r o ft , 38 6 F . 3d 92 2, 92 7-28 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( m em ber of a di sf avored grou p m ustal so show an i nd i vi du al i ze d ri sk of harm ); L olon g v. G on zales , 48 4 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 81 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( en banc) (gener al , un di ff er ent i at ed c l a i m di d notm ake the pe t i t i one re l i gi bl e f ora s y l um ) . T he r e c or d a l s o doe s not c om pe l the c onc l us i on B udi m a n ha s aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e ha rm ba s e d on h is B u d d h is t r e lig io n . Se e Ko ta szv . I NS , 31 F . 3d 84 7, 85 4 (9th C i r. 19 94 ) ( deni al07- 71969 3 o f a s y lu m to o n e p e titio n e ra f f irm e db e c au s e s h e d idn o t s h o w s y s te m a tic pe r s e c ut i on orof

f e ra nyi ndi vi dua l e vi de nc e ) . F i na l l y , B udi m a n ha s not e s t abl i s he d the r e i s apa tt e rn orpr a c t i c e of pe r s e c ut i on a ga i ns tC hi ne s e or B u d d h is ts in I n d o n e s ia . See W akkaryv. H

older , 55 8 F . 3d 10 49 , 10 61 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). A cc ordi ng l y, subst ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s f i nd i ng that B ud i m an do es no thave a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a p r o te c te dg r o u n d . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . a t 4 8 3 . B e c au s e B u d im a n f

a ile dto m e e t th e lo w e rb u r d e n o f p r o o f f o ra s y lu m , it f o llo w s th a t h e h a s n o t m e t th e h ig h e rs tan d a r df o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. See Zehat ye v. G on zales , 4 5 3 F .3 d1 1 8 2 , 1 1 9 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T he re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on i ti s m ore l i kel y than n otthat B u d im a n w ill b e to rtu r e dif h e r e tu rn s to I n d o n e s ia . See W a kka ry , 55 8 F . 3d at 1 0 6 8 ; D el

ga do -O rt i

z v . H older , 60 0 F . 3d 11 48 , 11 52 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( general i ze d evi dence of vi ol ence i n a coun trydo es no tm ee tthe st andard for C A T re l i ef ). T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the m ot i on f or re consi dera t i on because B ud i m an di d n otes t abl i sh a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on un der the di sf avored grou p anal ys i s of Sa el . Se e Cano-Me r i da , 311 F . 3 dat9 6 4 (th e B IA ’ s d eci si o n w i l l n o tb e d i stu rb edu n l ess i ti s arb i trary, i rr at i on al , or contraryt o l aw ).07- 71969 4 B e c aus e ourr e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o doc um e nt s i n the r e c or d, w e do not c ons i de rw he the rB udi m a n i s e l i gi bl e f ora s y l um ba s e d on hi s s i s t e r ’ s s uc c e s s f ul ap p lic a tio n . Se e Fis h e rv . I NS , 79 F . 3d 95 5, 96 3 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( en banc). No . 0 7 - 7 1 9 6 9 : P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D. No . 0 7 - 7 3 6 3 8 : P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.