Case Name: Soedarsono HARDJOOETOMO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-29
Citations: 474 F. App'x 520
Docket Number: No. 10-70480
Parties: Soedarsono HARDJOOETOMO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 520–520

Head Matter:
Soedarsono HARDJOOETOMO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70480.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed June 29, 2012.
Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey Lawrence Mentón, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Soedarsono Hardjooetomo, 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 withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Hardjooetomo does not argue he suffered past persecution in Indonesia, but fears persecution in the future as an ethnic Chinese Christian. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Hardjooetomo did not establish sufficient individualized risk to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See id. at 1066 ("[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence"); see also Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.2003). We reject Hardjooetomo's request for a remand for the agency to do a disfavored group analysis, because the agency already did it. Accordingly, Hardjooetomo's withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.