Yulunta Sulindro; 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YULUNTA SULINDRO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71075
Agency Nos. A096-356-396
A096-356-397
A096-356-481
A096-356-482
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Yulunta Sulindro and his family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying their claims for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
NOV 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-71075 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We
deny the petition for review.
We decline to consider petitioners’ argument regarding the pattern and
practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d
118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“Issues raised for the first time in the reply
brief are waived.”). We also decline to consider the new evidence petitioners
reference in their opening brief because our review is limited to the administrative
record underlying the immigration judge’s decision. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the incidents
of mistreatment at issue, including Sulindro’s beating by students from a rival
school after a basketball game, the motorcycle pursuit of his wife by suspected
Jihad members, and the violence his wife witnessed during riots in Jakarta in 1998,
do not establish past persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60
(9th Cir. 2009) (discriminatory mistreatment including beatings and robberies by
native Indonesian youths and being accosted by hostile mob did not compel
finding of past persecution). Further, even as members of a disfavored group,
petitioners have not demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-71075 3
See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Wakkary,
558 F.3d at 1066 (“An applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a
considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail....”).
Accordingly, we deny the petition as to petitioners’ withholding of removal claim.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be
tortured if removed to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --