Fransiska Jasinta Kapoh; Raymond Jeanno Waani; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRANSISKA JASINTA KAPOH;
RAYMOND JEANNO WAANI; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72570
Agency Nos. A096-163-110
A096-163-111
A096-163-112
A096-163-113
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.
Fransiska Jasinta Kapoh and her husband and children, natives and citizens
of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
FILED
APR 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-72570 2
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 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.
Petitioners do not raise any arguments in their opening brief regarding the
agency’s dispositive determination that their 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). Accordingly, we deny the petition
with respect to their asylum claim.
Kapoh claims she was persecuted in Indonesia based on the stoning of her
home during the May 1998 riots. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
finding that Kapoh failed to establish she suffered harm that rose to the level of
past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). In
addition, even as a member of a disfavored group, Kapoh did not demonstrate the
requisite individualized risk of persecution to establish a clear probability of future
persecution. See id. at 1184-85; 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 agency’s denial of withholding of removal.

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72570 3
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Kapoh failed to establish that it is more likely than not she will be tortured in
Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --