Yansen Deryawan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Miranda Du, District Judge for the U.S. District Court***
for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANSEN DERYAWAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70360
Agency No. A099-736-271
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 7, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DU, District Judge.***
Yansen Deryawan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirming an Immigration
FILED
JUN 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
Judge’s (IJ) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Deryawan did not
suffer past persecution. Although Deryawan and his family were victims of
repeated discrimination and harassment on account of their Christian faith and
Chinese ethnicity, these experiences, considered individually or cumulatively, do
not compel the conclusion that Deryawan suffered past persecution. Halim v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975–76 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1059–60 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Deryawan did not show
a well-founded fear of future persecution. Deryawan’s claim that he fears future
persecution is undercut by his family’s continued residence in Indonesia without
harm and by his initial plan to return to Indonesia. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015,
1022 (9th Cir. 2009); Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017–18 (9th Cir. 2008).
Deryawan is also not entitled to relief under a disfavored group analysis because he
has not made a sufficient showing of individualized risk. Halim, 590 F.3d at 979.
Similarly, Deryawan did provide sufficient evidence to compel the

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
conclusion that he is likely to be tortured upon his return to Indonesia. Wakkary,
558 F.3d at 1068.
We also deny Deryawan’s claim that he is entitled to relief because the IJ
violated his due-process rights. Because “the factual record adequately supports
the denial of [Deryawan’s] application for relief, we cannot find that the alleged
bias held by the IJ was the basis for the denial of the application.” Vargas-
Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007).
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --