Goenawan Boedijono; Meyke Margaretha 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GOENAWAN BOEDIJONO; MEYKE
MARGARETHA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72016
Agency Nos. A096-362-468
A099-887-499
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Goenawan Boedijono and Meyke Margaretha, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
FILED
MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-72016 2
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s finding that they failed to
demonstrate past persecution. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that
petitioners lack a well-founded fear of future persecution because, even as
members of disfavored groups as ethnic Chinese Indonesians and Christians, they
failed to establish that they face an individualized risk of harm. See Halim v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173,
1181 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (petitioner’s fears might be “shared by millions of
ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia.”). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claims
fail. We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ unexhausted contention that they
will be targeted for persecution because they are Westernized. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Because petitioners failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that they have not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-72016 3
Finally, the record does not compel the conclusion it is more likely than not
that petitioners will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if
they return to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir.
2009). Accordingly, petitioners’ CAT claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --