Max Everhardus De Fretes 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).
*** The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAX EVERHARDUS DE FRETES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70462
Agency No. A096-338-575
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,
Senior District Judge. ***
Max Everhardus De Fretes, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
FILED
JUN 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the
parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we repeat
only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We review for
substantial evidence, Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.
2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the attacks on De
Fretes’s residential community, including the burning and looting of his family’s
home and other incidents of civil strife, do not rise to the level of past persecution.
See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that De Fretes failed to demonstrate a well-
founded fear of future persecution because he can relocate to another part of
Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i). Accordingly, De Fretes’s asylum
claim fails.
Because De Fretes failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n.5 (citing Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425,
1429 (9th Cir. 1995)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because De Fretes failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
upon return to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir.
2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --