Adrianus Soleman Riwuhida v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIANUS SOLEMAN RIWUHIDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71129
Agency No. A078-020-171
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Adrianus Soleman Riwuhida, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal,
following our remand for consideration of his withholding of removal claim under
a disfavored group analysis. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Because our review is limited to the administrative record, we do not
consider the 2011 religious freedom report Riwuhida referenced in his opening
brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Riwuhida failed
to establish a likelihood of persecution, even under disfavored group analysis,
because he did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk. See Halim v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner failed to show he was likely
to be individually targeted where he “failed to offer any evidence that distinguishes
his exposure from those of all other ethnic Chinese Indonesians”); Hakeem v. INS,
273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[a]n applicant’s claim of persecution upon
return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members
continue to live in the country without incident”); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066
(“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably
larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum
applicant”). We reject Riwuhida’s pattern or practice argument.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-71129 2

-- 2 of 2 --