Richoff Dody v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHOFF DODY,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70703
Agency No. A095-634-570
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Richoff Dody, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JT/Research 07-70703 2
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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.
The IJ denied Dody’s asylum application claim as time-barred. Dody does
not challenge this finding in his opening brief.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Dody failed to
establish past persecution. See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th
Cir. 1991) (requiring that any pattern of persecution against friends or family
members be “closely tied to the petitioner”). Substantial evidence also supports
the agency’s determination that Dody failed to establish a clear probability of
future persecution, because 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,
Dody did not demonstrate the requisite individualized risk, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft,
319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003), and the record does not compel the
conclusion that Dody established a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians
in Indonesia, see Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2007) (en
banc); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061-62. Accordingly, Dody’s withholding of
removal claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

JT/Research 07-70703 3
Dody has failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the agency’s
denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --