Rendy Suady 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).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RENDY SUADY,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71326
Agency No. A078-020-451
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Rendy Suady, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
FILED
JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PR/Research 07-71326 2
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Hoxha v. Ashcroft,
319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ denied Suady’s asylum application claim as time-barred. Suady does
not challenge this finding in his opening brief.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal
because Suady conceded he did not suffer past persecution, and even if the
disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th
Cir. 2004), applies to Christian Indonesians, Suady failed to establish a clear
probability of persecution because he did not demonstrate the requisite
individualized risk. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1184-85. Finally, the record does not
compel the conclusion that Suady established a pattern or practice of persecution of
Batak Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62
(9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Suady failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned
to Indonesia. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --