Chee-Ket Wong 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). Thus, we deny Wong’s
request for oral argument.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHEE-KET WONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72856
Agency No. A077-074-977
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Chee-Ket Wong, a native and citizen of Malaysia, 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.
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 11-72856
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 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.
Wong does not contend that he suffered past persecution. Rather, he
contends that he faces a clear probability of future persecution based on his
Christian religion and Chinese ethnicity. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Wong failed to show
sufficient individualized risk to establish that it is more likely than not he would be
persecuted if removed to Malaysia. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th
Cir. 2009); 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 prevail than would an asylum applicant”). Accordingly, Wong’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --