The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-71202•Lawrence Ray Malonda v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
10-71202Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 29, 2012
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LAWRENCE RAY MALONDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71202
Agency No. A078-442-403
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Lawrence Ray Malonda, 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
FILED
JUN 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
10-71202 2
evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Malonda did not
experience harms in Indonesia that rise to the level of past persecution. See Halim
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis,
Malonda did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk to establish a clear
probability of persecution, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (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”),
and did not demonstrate there is a pattern or practice of persecution against
Chinese Christians in Indonesia, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly,
Malonda’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.