Trintje Simanjuntak 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TRINTJE SIMANJUNTAK,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70155
Agency No. A089-731-221
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Trintje Simanjuntak, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
FEB 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-70155 2
for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA found that Simanjuntak failed to challenge the IJ’s determination
that Simanjuntak’s asylum claim was time-barred, and Simanjuntak does not raise
any challenge to the BIA’s finding.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Simanjuntak failed to
establish the incidents she suffered in Indonesia constitute past persecution. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-79 (9th Cir. 2009) (Christian Indonesian who
had been beaten and threatened failed to establish past persecution); Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (“being accosted by a threatening
mob” while driving was discriminatory mistreatment but did not constitute past
persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that, even under a
disfavored group analysis, Simanjuntak has not established that it is more likely
than not she will be persecuted in Indonesia, because she has not demonstrated
sufficient individualized risk. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979 (applicants must present
evidence that they face a unique and individualized risk of future harm); Wakkary,
558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a
considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would

-- 2 of 3 --

11-70155 3
an asylum applicant”). Because the BIA analyzed Simanjuntak’s claim under a
disfavored group analysis, we reject her request to remand in light of our decision
in Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, her
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --