Kasim Barus 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).
KN/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KASIM BARUS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73299
Agency No. A078-020-230
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Kasim Barus, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KN/Research 07-73299 2
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for review.
Barus does not raise any arguments in his opening brief regarding the
agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum claim was time-barred. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument are deemed waived).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that neither Barus nor his
family suffered harm nor received threats. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,
1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s experiences not so severe as to compel a finding
of past persecution). In addition, Barus failed to demonstrate a clear probability of
future harm. See id. at 1185 (evidence did not compel a finding that it is more
probable than not that applicant would be persecuted); Lolong v. Gonzales, 484
F.3d 1173, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2007) (objective well-founded fear not established
because applicant made a general, undifferentiated claim). Finally, the record does
not compel a finding of a pattern or practice of persecution. See Wakkary, 558
F.3d at 1061. Accordingly, Barus’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Barus

-- 2 of 3 --

KN/Research 07-73299 3
failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured in Indonesia.
See id. at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --