Syora Dewi; Rahkmat Aritin 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SYORA DEWI; RAHKMAT ARITIN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71295
Agency Nos. A099-432-630
A099-432-631
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Syora Dewi and Rahkmat Aritin, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71295 2
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s finding that the harm they faced at the
hands of Dewi’s family did not rise to the level of persecution. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically
raised and supported by argument are deemed abandoned). With respect to their
future fear, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed
to provide sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, see
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution too speculative), and they failed to demonstrate that internal relocation
would not be a reasonable option, see Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333,
338 (9th Cir. 2011). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ new claims
regarding a disfavored group analysis and a pattern or practice of persecution. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court lacks jurisdiction
to review contentions not raised before the BIA). Petitioners did not raise these
contentions to the BIA; they argued only that they feared harm from powerful
family members. Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Petitioners’ request for oral argument is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --