Muhamad Uref Noor 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).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUHAMAD UREF NOOR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71968
Agency No. A079-643-141
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Muhamad Uref Noor, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction
FILED
JAN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AR/Research 07-71968 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s denial of
the application for withholding of removal, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the two
encounters Noor suffered in 1994 with the Islamic Defender’s Front did not rise to
the level of past persecution on account of one of the protected grounds. See Faruk
v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2004) (evidence of harassment and attacks
on interracial and interreligious couple insufficient to show past persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Noor failed to
show it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted if returned to
Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009)
(withholding requires objectively reasonable fear that persecution upon return is
more likely than not). Accordingly, Norr’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Noor’s contention that the agency did not adequately consider the evidence
is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --