Jerry Roy Walean 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).
NED/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERRY ROY WALEAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71232
Agency No. A095-629-838
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jerry Roy Walean, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

NED/Research 07-71232 2
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence findings of fact, Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.4
(9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Walean has shown changed
circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales,
479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
The record does not compel the conclusion that there is a clear probability
Walean would be persecuted on account of his westernization or United States
citizen children if he returned to Indonesia. See Ramadan, 479 F.3d at 658. Even
if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29
(9th Cir. 2004) applies to Walean, a Seventh Day Adventist Christian, he has not
demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha, 319
F.3d at 1184-85; see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009).
(“an applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger
quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail[.]”). Finally, the record also
does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of
Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

NED/Research 07-71232 3
Accordingly, Walean’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --