NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HENNY RONDONUWU,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 22

- 953

Agency No.

A200

- 991

- 916

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 11, 2023 **

Seattle, Washington

Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges

.

H e n n y R o n d o n u w u

, a n a t i v e a n d c i t i z e n o f I n d o n e s i a

, c o n c e d e d

r e m o v a b i l i t y u n d e r 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1227 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B )

. S h e s e e k s r e v i e w o f a n o r d e r o f

t h e B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ( B I A ) a f f

i r m i n g t h e d e c i s i o n o f a n

I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e ( I J ) d e n y i n g h e r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a s y l u m

, w i t h h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l

, a n d C A T r e l i e f

. W e h a v e jurisd i ction u n d e r 8 U.S.C

. § 1252 (a)

, a n d

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not

precedent exce pt as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 15 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 w e d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n

.

S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e I J ’ s a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t y f i n d i n g

.

R o n d o n u w u d i d n o t m e n t i o n s u f f

e r i n g a n y physical m i s t r e a t m e n t w h e n

d e s c r i b i n g perceived i n c i d e n t s o f p e r s e c u t i o n i n h e r a p p l i c a t i o n m a t e r i a l s

. B u t

w h e n R o n d o n u w u a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e I J

, s h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e w a s s u b

j e c t e d t o

n u m e r o u s i n c i d e n t s o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e b e c a u s e o f h e r C h r i s t i a n b e l i e f s

. T h e

I J “ p r o v i d [ e d ] s p e c i f i c a n d c o g e n t r e a s o n s ” t o s u p p o r t i t s f i n d i n g t h a t

R o n d o n u w u l a c k e d c r e d i b i l i t y b e c a u s e o f h e r i n c o n sistent t e s t i m o n y

. S hrestha

v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (qu oting Malkandi v. Holder

,

576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009) )

. A n d n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d o t h e rw i s e

compel s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t R o n d o n u w u i s c r e d i b l e

. S e e Khadka v. Holder

, 618

F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir. 2010)

.

S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a l s o s u p p o r t s t h e a g e n c y ’ s d e n i a l o f a s y l u m

,

withholding o f removal

, a n d C A T relief

. R o n d o n u w u h a s f a i l e d t o p r o d u c e an y

c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t h a t s h e h a s f a c e d

, o r w i l l f a c e

, a n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d r i sk o f

p e r s e c u t i o n

. S e e Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1064

– 65 (9th Cir. 2009)

(requiring s o m e “specifically individualized evidence” e v e n w h e r e p e t i t i o n e r i s

a m e m b e r o f a disfavored group )

. A n d t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t

c o m p e l t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i t i s m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o t t h a t R o n d o n u w u w i l l b e

t o r t u r e d

. S e e Shrestha

, 590 F.3d a t 1048

– 4 9

.

P E T I T I O N D E N I E D

.