Yusuf Karim 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YUSUF KARIM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73918
Agency No. A095-630-105
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Yusuf Karim, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-73918 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
and review de novo the agency’s legal determinations. Tamang v. Holder, 598
F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Karim claims the police hit him once with a stick during a student
demonstration, and that Muslim extremists threatened him on at least five
occasions. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Karim
failed to demonstrate past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,
1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats and one incident of physical violence did
not compel a finding of past persecution). We reject Karim’s contention that the
agency failed to consider the cumulative effect of the harms he suffered. Further,
as Karim has not established past persecution, he is not entitled to a presumption of
future persecution. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.
2002).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Karim failed to
demonstrate it is more likely than not he will face persecution from Muslim
extremists or the police. See id. (agency is “entitled to rely on all relevant evidence
in the record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the
petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Karim failed to

-- 2 of 3 --

10-73918 3
establish he will be harmed by Muslim extremists for having lived in the United
States. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of
future persecution is too speculative). Accordingly, Karim’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Karim failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the Indonesian government upon return. See
Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --