Ali Sobana 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALI SOBANA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71120
Agency No. A095-634-728
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Ali Sobana, 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 evidence
FILED
AUG 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71120 2
factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
Sobana contends that he faced past persecution and faces a clear probability
of persecution in Indonesia as a moderate Muslim. Substantial evidence supports
the agency’s conclusion that Sobana’s experiences during the May 1998 riots and
at a nightclub in 2000 did not constitute past persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (two
incidents of beating and robbery and being accosted by hostile mob did not compel
finding of past persecution); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.
2003) (unfulfilled threats constituted harassment, not persecution). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Sobana did not establish a
clear probability of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s fear was “too speculative” and thus not objectively
reasonable). We reject Sobana’s assertion that the BIA found there was no
evidence Muslim extremists target other Muslims because it is belied by the
record. Accordingly, Sobana’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --