Case Name: Oki SUTANTO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-21
Citations: 310 F. App'x 88
Docket Number: No. 06-74435
Parties: Oki SUTANTO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 88–89

Head Matter:
Oki SUTANTO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74435.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 21, 2009.
Cindy S. Chang, Esquire, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
Susan K. Houser, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Oki Sutanto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal. 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.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of withholding of removal because Sutanto did not establish that the harms and discrimination he experienced rose to the level of past persecution. See id. at 1016-18. Furthermore, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.2004) applies in the context of withholding of removal, Sutanto has not demonstrated a clear probability of persecution, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.2003), and his claim is further undermined by the safe, continued presence of his similarly situated parents in Indonesia, see Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th Cir.2001).
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.