Tjandra Njata v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TJANDRA NJATA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71618
Agency No. A097-349-833
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Tjandra Njata, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
Even if Njata were credible, the record does not compel the conclusion that
his experiences of discrimination and one random beating rose to the level of past
persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009); Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and one
beating did not compel finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also
supports the BIA’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis,
Njata failed to establish sufficient individualized risk of harm to demonstrate a
well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979 (insufficient
individualized risk where petitioner “failed to offer any evidence that distinguishes
his exposure from those of all other ethnic Chinese Indonesians”). Accordingly,
his asylum claim fails.
Because Njata failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.
12-71618 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, Njata does not raise any arguments regarding the denial of CAT
relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues
not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-71618 3

-- 3 of 3 --