Donny Siun Hok Tjan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DONNY SIUN HOK TJAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73071
Agency No. A099-735-195
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Donny Siun Hok Tjan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-73071
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Tjan testified he was robbed three times as a youth and was beaten up once
while working as a rent collector for a commercial property owner. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harm Tjan suffered was not on
account of his ethnicity, religion, or other protected ground. See Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act requires that a
protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s
persecution”); Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (random
criminal acts bore no nexus to race). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that Tjan failed to establish sufficient individualized risk of harm
under a disfavored group analysis to establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-979 (9th Cir. 2009); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft,
386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004).
Because Tjan failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim
for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --