Case Name: Robinson Hamonangan K. PASARIBU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-30
Citations: 357 F. App'x 820
Docket Number: No. 07-72023
Parties: Robinson Hamonangan K. PASARIBU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 820–821

Head Matter:
Robinson Hamonangan K. PASARIBU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72023.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Nov. 30, 2009.
Cindy S. Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
Janice K. Redfern, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, 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: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robinson Hamonangan K Pasaribu, 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 the agency's factual findings, Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir.2000), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Pasaribu failed to establish past persecution, see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (threats constitute past persecution only when they are "so menacing as to cause significant, actual suffering or harm"), and failed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution on account of his Christianity, see Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) ("a general, undifferentiated claim" does not make petitioner eligible for relief); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, his 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.