Manto Sentoso; Ellyna Tjondrowalujo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MANTO SENTOSO; ELLYNA
TJONDROWALUJO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73641
Agency Nos. A096-362-853
A072-865-160
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Manto Sentoso and Ellyna Tjondrowalujo, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
FILED
OCT 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73641 2
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 &
n.1 (1992). “Whether the IJ complied with the BIA’s four procedural requirements
for a frivolousness finding is a question of law we review de novo.” Liu v. Holder,
640 F.3d 918, 928 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The agency’s conclusion that petitioners knowingly filed frivolous asylum
applications is supported by a preponderance of the evidence in light of petitioners’
admission that Sentoso filed an asylum application containing false statements in
2003 and petitioners failed to correct the misstatements during their interview
before the Asylum Officer. See Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 918 (9th Cir.
2008). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claims fail.
Even if petitioners testified credibly, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that the beating and robberies Sentoso suffered, and the sexual
harassment and robbery of Tjondrowalujo, do not rise to the level of persecution.
See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, the
record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners have a clear probability of
future persecution, even under a disfavored group analysis, because they have not
demonstrated they would be singled out for harm. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d
971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009). The record also does not compel the conclusion that

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73641 3
there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of removal
claim fails.
Finally, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --