Zeatly Karamony 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ZEATLY KARAMONY,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74988
Agency No. A096-346-448
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Zeatly Karamony, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the 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
AUG 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74988 2
Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), and we deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding because the
harassment Karamony suffered during the 1998 riots does not rise to the level of
persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). Further,
Karamony has not provided sufficient evidence that she has been, or is likely to be,
specifically targeted for persecution as a Chinese Christian in Indonesia. See
Lolong, 484 F.3d at 1180 n.4 (rejecting petitioner’s claim where she failed to show
that she was “more likely to be targeted for persecution or harassment than any
other member of Indonesia’s Chinese Christian community”); see also Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“An applicant for withholding of
removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk
evidence to prevail”). Accordingly, Karamony’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --