Yuni Kurniawati 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUNI KURNIAWATI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75453
Agency No. A079-195-223
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Yuni Kurniawati, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of
FILED
APR 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

In the previous proceedings before the agency, the IJ found Kurniawati had1
not suffered past persecution and had not otherwise shown a clear probability of
future persecution. The BIA summarily affirmed. In a memorandum disposition,
the court concluded substantial evidence supported the IJ’s denial of withholding
of removal. See Kurniawati v. Ashcroft, 114 Fed. Appx. 327 (9th Cir. 2004).
06-75453 2
removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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.
We decline to address Kurniawati’s past persecution claim because that
claim was not before the agency after the BIA granted the motion to reopen to
address Kurniawati’s fear of future harm in Indonesia in light of new Ninth Circuit
decisions. See Ramirez-Altamirano v. Holder, 563 F.3d 800, 804 (9th Cir. 2009)1
(noting review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by BIA). In any event,
the record does not compel the conclusion that the mistreatment Kurniawati
encountered in Indonesia rose to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d
at 1060-61. Further, even as a member of a disfavored group, she has not
demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1066 (“An applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably
larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail . . . .”). Accordingly,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Kurniawati’s withholding of

-- 2 of 3 --

06-75453 3
removal claim. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1184-85.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --