Fnu Maktinus 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FNU MAKTINUS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72202
Agency No. A088-129-180
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Maktinus, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
MAR 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-72202 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harms Maktinus
suffered in Indonesia, even cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution.
See id. at 1059-60; Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2009) (incidents
of harm petitioner suffered due to his Chinese ethnicity did “not compel a finding
of past persecution”). Absent past persecution, he does not have a rebuttable
presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that, even under a disfavored group
analysis, Maktinus failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of harm to
establish a well-founded fear. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 975-77. Contrary to
Maktinus’ contention, the agency addressed his claim that he suffered harm on
account of his Chinese ethnicity. Consequently, his asylum claim fails.
Because Maktinus failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-72202 3
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Maktinus failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured
upon return to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068-69.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --