Case Name: Bernard MAMBO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-06
Citations: 336 F. App'x 712
Docket Number: No. 04-74840
Parties: Bernard MAMBO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 336
Pages: 712–714

Head Matter:
Bernard MAMBO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74840.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 6, 2009.
Kaaren L. Barr, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Thomas Fatouros, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bernard Mambo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency denied Mambo's asylum claim as time-barred. Mambo does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of withholding of removal. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.2003). Mambo failed to establish he suffered past persecution when Muslims threw rocks at him one time. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003). And, he did not establish a clear probability of future persecution because even if he were a member of a disfavored group, he did not demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). Lastly, the record does not compel the conclusion that Mambo established a pattern or practice of persecution against Christians in Indonesia. See id. at 1180-81.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Mambo did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.