Siauw David Budiman 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SIAUW DAVID BUDIMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70442
Agency No. A095-634-565
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Siauw David Budiman, 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 asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70442 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused the Budiman’s delay in filing his asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th
Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, Budiman’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the cumulative harm
Budiman experienced in Indonesia, including demands for money and threats with
a pocketknife, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319
F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003).
Further, even as a member of a disfavored group, Budiman has not
established a clear probability of future persecution because he failed to
demonstrate that he faces an individualized risk of harm. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at
1184-85; 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, we deny the
petition as to Budiman’s withholding of removal claim.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70442 3
Budiman fails to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of his CAT
claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues
not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --