Deddy Sunaryo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DEDDY SUNARYO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70505
Agency No. A078-020-357
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.
Deddy Sunaryo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70505 2
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition
for review.
Sunaryo does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum application as
time-barred, the agency’s conclusion that he did not establish past persecution, and
the agency’s denial of his application for relief under the Convention Against
Torture. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The IJ determined Sunaryo did not establish a clear probability of
persecution because Sunaryo’s difficulties with the father of a female Muslim
student were more of a personal problem, Sunaryo was robbed once, but not
otherwise personally threatened on account of his ethnicity, and the cause of the
motorcycle incident was unclear. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding
that Sunaryo failed to establish a clear probability of persecution because, even as a
member of a disfavored group, Sunaryo did not demonstrate the requisite
individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 2003) (holding evidence did not compel a finding of a clear probability of
future persecution); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“An applicant for
withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70505 3
individualized-risk evidence to prevail [.]”). Additionally, the record does not
compel the conclusion that Sunaryo established a pattern and practice claim. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061-62. Accordingly, Sunaryo’s claim for withholding of
removal fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --