Kui Bun Thai 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KUI BUN THAI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70355
Agency No. A078-020-226
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Kui Bun Thai, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
FILED
JUL 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70355
evidence factual findings and review de novo legal determinations. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel reversal of the BIA’s conclusion that Thai failed
to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of harm under a disfavored group
analysis to establish a clear probability of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590
F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner failed to show individual risk of harm
where he “failed to offer any evidence that distinguishes his exposure from those
of all other ethnic Chinese Indonesians”). We reject Thai's contention that he is
otherwise entitled to withholding of removal. Accordingly, Thai’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Finally, Thai’s argument that the BIA’s analysis of his claim was improper
due to its reliance on the 2003 State Department country report fails. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a
petitioner to prevail on a due process claim). We reject Thai’s request that the case
be remanded for consideration of updated country conditions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --