Adi Sujana 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).
DL/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADI SUJANA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73666
Agency No. A097-620-784
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Adi Sujana, 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, withholding of removal, and
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DL/Research 06-73666 2
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d
922, 924 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the cumulative harm
Sujana experienced in Indonesia, including being robbed as a child, did not rise to
the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.
2003). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s well-founded fear finding
because, even as a member of a disfavored group, Sujana failed to demonstrate the
requisite individualized risk of persecution. Cf. Sael, 386 F.3d at 927-29.
Because Sujana did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows
that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Sujana has not substantively challenged the agency’s denial of CAT relief in
his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening
brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --