Case Name: Meyky PANEKENAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-29
Citations: 294 F. App'x 381
Docket Number: No. 04-73955
Parties: Meyky PANEKENAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 381–381

Head Matter:
Meyky PANEKENAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73955.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 29, 2008.
Kaaren L. Barr, Esq., Law Offices of Karen L. Barr, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, 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, Mark C. Walters, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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
Meyky Panekenan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
To the extent Panekenan challenges the IJ's denial of asylum, we lack jurisdiction to review it because Panekenan did not raise it to the BIA.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that Panekenan did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal because Panekenan's experiences in Indonesia did not constitute past persecution. See id. at 1016-18. Furthermore, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004) applies to Christian Indonesians seeking withholding of removal, Panekenan failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not that he will be persecuted if he returned to Indonesia. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003).
Panekenan's CAT claim fails because he has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.