Warouw Soleiman Raymon Ganda 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WAROUW SOLEIMAN RAYMON
GANDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75090
Agency No. A096-499-672
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.
Warouw Soleiman Raymon Ganda, 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
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
APR 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-75090 2
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ganda did not suffer
past persecution because the name calling at school and the robbery, considered
individually or cumulatively, did not constitute persecution, see Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (“persecution is an extreme
concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive”) (internal quotation and citation omitted), and Ganda did not establish
that his father’s poisoning was part of a “pattern of persecution closely tied to”
Ganda, see id. at 1060. In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
finding that, even as a member of a disfavored group, he failed to demonstrate 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 (“[a]n applicant for
withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of
individualized-risk evidence to prevail”). Accordingly, Ganda’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --