Hasyimuddin Hasyimuddin; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HASYIMUDDIN HASYIMUDDIN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73043
Agency Nos. A079-517-962
A079-517-963
A079-517-964
A079-517-965
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hasyimuddin Hasyimuddin and his family, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
MAY 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 09-73043
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar
v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
Regarding derivative petitioners Andrew Hasyimuddin (A079-517-964) and
Theresia Hasyimuddin (A079-517-965), on May 8, 2012 and May 16, 2012,
respectively, the BIA reopened and terminated removal proceedings without
prejudice to afford each of them the opportunity to apply for adjustment of status.
Consequently, there is no final order of removal currently in effect for Andrew or
Theresia, and this court lacks jurisdiction over the petition for review as to each of
them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); cf. Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir.
2009). Accordingly, we grant petitioners’ unopposed motions to dismiss the
petition for review with respect to Andrew and Theresia.
As to the remaining petitioners, the record does not compel the conclusion
that Hasyimuddin’s experiences, cumulatively considered, rise to the level of
persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (two beatings and robberies, and
being accosted by a threatening mob did not compel finding of past persecution);
cf. Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 1998) (concluding there

-- 2 of 3 --

3 09-73043
was persecution where Ukranian Jew witnessed violent attacks, suffered
harassment, death threats, robbery, attack, and medical treatment for shock and
concussion). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even under a
disfavored group analysis, Hasyimuddin failed to establish a clear probability of
future persecution because he did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk.
See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003); Wakkary, 558 F.3d
at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a
considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence”). Accordingly,
Hasyimuddin’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Hasyimuddin failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary,
558 F.3d at 1067-68.
Finally, we reject Hasyimuddin’s due process contention that the BIA
improperly made factual findings in assessing his eligibility under a disfavored
group analysis, and his contentions concerning the hearing transcript and
translation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --