Bernardus Wirasto; v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, 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 finds this case 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BERNARDUS WIRASTO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 04-73738
Agency Nos. A96-054-849
A96-054-850
A96-054-851
A96-054-852
A96-054-853
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Bernardus Wirasto and his wife and sons, all natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
FILED
JAN 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence, 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 determination that Wirasto did
not establish eligibility for asylum, because the evidence does not compel the
conclusion that the criminal proceedings pending against him in Indonesia
constituted persecution or were motivated by his actual or imputed political
opinion. See Abedini v. U.S., 971 F.2d 188, 191 (9th Cir. 1992).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Wirasto
did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal because the evidence does
not distinguish the situation the petitioners potentially would face upon return to
Indonesia from that experienced by all Christian Indonesians, and the petitioners
have not demonstrated the requisite level of individualized risk necessary to
compel a finding of a clear probability of future persecution. See Lolong v.
Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386
F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Wirasto has forfeited any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument in opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --