Apriyanto 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
APRIYANTO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-74394
Agency No. A072-901-908
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Apriyanto, 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 asylum and withholding
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KV/Research 05-74394 2
of removal. 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 for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Apriyanto failed to
establish past persecution because the harassment and discrimination he
experienced in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution, see id. at 1059-60,
and because the death of Apriyanto’s sister was not part of a pattern of persecution
closely tied to him, see id. at 1060. Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s denial of asylum 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, Apriyanto did not show sufficient individualized risk to demonstrate a
well-founded fear of future persecution, see Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173,
1180-81 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). In addition, the record does not compel the
conclusion that the religious strife in Indonesia amounts to a pattern or practice of
persecution against Christian Indonesians. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061-62.
Lastly, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that
Apriyanto’s fear of future persecution based on potential harm to his U.S. citizen
daughter is not objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

KV/Research 05-74394 3
Because Apriyanto failed to establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --