Iwan Susanto 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
IWAN SUSANTO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74907
Agency No. A096-356-425
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Iwan Susanto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 jurisdiction under
FILED
MAR 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-74907 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and grant in part the
petition for review, and we remand.
Susanto does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that his
asylum application was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Similarly, Susanto has not raised any argument challenging the agency’s
denial of his CAT claim. See id. Accordingly, his CAT claim also fails.
With respect to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that Susanto’s experiences in Indonesia did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). In
addition, the record does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or
practice of persecution of Chinese Buddhists in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d
at 1061. However, in assessing Susanto’s risk of future persecution, the agency
did not have the benefit of our opinion in Wakkary. Accordingly, we grant the
petition with respect to Susanto’s withholding of removal claim, and we remand
for the agency to consider it under a disfavored group analysis. See INS v.
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-74907 3
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --