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 L E ON AR D MAN E GE NG , 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- 70932 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 629- 993 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 A pr i l5, 2011 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , C L IF T O N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L e ona r d M a ne ge ng, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndone s i a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ 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 pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve 

# FI LED APR13 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70932 2 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 , W a kka ry v. H older , 558 F . 3d 1049, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , a nd w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. T he re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on thatM anegeng est abl i shed c h a n g e dc ir c u m s tan c e s s u f f ic ie n t 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 . § 1 2 0 8 .4 ( a ) ; R am adan v. G on zales , 479 F . 3d 646, 657- 58 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( p e rc u r i a m) . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e d e n yth e p e t i t i o n a s t o M a n e g e n g ’ s a s y l u m c l a i m. T h e reco rdal so d o es n o tco m p el th e co n cl u si o n th atM an eg en g su fferedp ast p e r s e c u tio n b a s e do n th e d is c r im in a to rym is tr e a tm e n t h e e x p e r ie n c e din I n d o n e s ia . See H al i m v. H older , 59 0 F . 3d 97 1, 97 5-76 (9th C i r. 20 09 ); W a kka ry , 55 8 F . 3d at 1059- 60. I n a ddi t i on, e ve n though he i s am e m be rof adi s f a vor e d gr oup, the re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on thatM anegeng est abl i shed a c l ear pr obabi l i tyof

pe r s e c ut i on i n I ndone s i a , be c aus e he ha s notde m ons tr a t e d s uf f i c i e nt in d iv idu a liz e dr is k . See H o x h a v . A s h c r o

ft , 31 9 F . 3d 11 79 , 11 85 (9th C i r. 20 03 ); W a kka ry , 55 8 F . 3d at10 66 (“ [a ] n app l i cantfor w i thh ol di ng of re m ov alw i l l need to a d du c e ac o n s id e r ab lylar g e rq u a n tu m o f in d iv idu a liz e d - r is ke v id e n c e ” ) . A cco rd i n g l y, M an eg en g ’ s w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al cl ai m fai l s.08- 70932 3 F i nal l y, subst ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s deni alof C A T re l i ef be c aus e M a ne ge ng 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 ytha n nothe w oul d be to rtu r e dif

r e tu rn e dto I n d o n e s ia . See W a kka ry , 5 5 8 F .3 da t 1 0 6 7 - 6 8 . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.