Johannis Jorry Ruaw; Maurits Ruaw 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOHANNIS JORRY RUAW;
MAURITS RUAW,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70984
Agency Nos. A078-020-400
A095-634-562
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Johannis Jorry Ruaw and Maurits Ruaw, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70984 2
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
On November 17, 2010, the BIA reopened proceedings with respect to
Johannis (A078-020-400), so that he could pursue adjustment of status.
Consequently, there is no final order of removal currently in effect as to Johannis,
and this court lacks jurisdiction over his petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(1); cf. Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss the
petition for review with respect to Johannis.
In the opening brief, Maurits does not challenge the agency’s dispositive
finding that his application for asylum was untimely. Accordingly, we deny the
petition for review as to his asylum claim.
With respect to withholding of removal, Maurits does not claim he suffered
any harm in Indonesia due to his Christianity, but he fears he will be persecuted in
the future. Even as a member of a disfavored group, the record does not compel
the conclusion Maurits established a clear probability of persecution, because he
failed to demonstrate his general, undifferentiated fear of harm is distinct from the
fears felt by all other Christians in Indonesia. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d
1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (“In sum, [petitioner] has provided no

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70984 3
evidence that [he] has been, or is likely to be, specifically targeted for persecution
by any individual or group in Indonesia.”); see also Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971,
979 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Maurits’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Maurits’ CAT
claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See id. at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --