Eldridge Woy; 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).
KAD/Research 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELDRIDGE WOY; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72470
Agency Nos. A078-020-272
A097-822-389
A097-822-390
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Eldridge Woy, and his wife and son, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KAD/Research 07-72470 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the
petition for review.
The BIA denied petitioners’ asylum application as time barred. Petitioners
do not challenge this finding.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners’
experiences of threats, discrimination, and harassment do not rise to the level of
past persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish a clear probability of persecution because, even if the disfavored
group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004)
applies to petitioners, Seventh Day Adventist Christians, they have not
demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d
1049 (“[A]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a
considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail[.]”).
Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or

-- 2 of 3 --

KAD/Research 07-72470 3
practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary at 1060-62.
Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners are not entitled to CAT relief because they failed to establish it is more
likely than not that they will be tortured upon return to Indonesia. See Malhi v.
INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --