Heru Andy Pardede 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HERU ANDY PARDEDE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74023
Agency No. A097-206-443
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Heru Andy Pardede, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 for substantial evidence,
FILED
JUN 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74023 2
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we grant the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harm Pardede
experienced during the student protests and the burning of his church did not rise
to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-340 (9th Cir.
1995).
In analyzing Pardede’s withholding of removal claim, the agency declined to
apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922,
927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Intervening case law holds the disfavored group analysis
applies to withholding of removal. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1062-65;
Tampubolon v. Holder, 598 F.3d 521, 525-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (“any reasonable
factfinder would be compelled to conclude on this record that Christian
Indonesians are a disfavored group”). Accordingly, we remand to the BIA to
consider whether Rusli is entitled to withholding of removal under Sael and
Wakkary. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In
addition, in assessing withholding of removal, the BIA should consider Pardede’s
pattern or practice of persecution and his social group claims. See Sagaydak v.
Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“the BIA [is] not free to ignore
arguments raised by a petitioner.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74023 3
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --