Kurniawan Salim 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KURNIAWAN SALIM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70070
Agency No. A077-302-674
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.
Kurniawan Salim, 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 asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-70070 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for review.
Salim does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that his asylum claim
was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). Similarly, he does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s
denial of CAT relief. See id.
Salim contends that he suffered past persecution and that he will be
persecuted in the future due to his beating during the 1998 riots, the bombing of his
wife’s church, and the attack and robbery of his brother. Substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s finding that Salim’s experiences in Indonesia did not rise to the
level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009)
(incidents of mistreatment, including beating at the hands of rioters, did not compel
finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding
that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Salim failed to show sufficient
individualized risk to establish it is more likely than not he would be persecuted on
account of his Chinese ethnicity if returned to Indonesia. See id. at 977-79; see
also 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 to

-- 2 of 3 --

10-70070 3
prevail than would an asylum applicant”). The record belies Salim’s contention
that the BIA improperly found him not credible with respect to individualized-risk
evidence. Accordingly, Salim’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --