Soedarsono Hardjooetomo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SOEDARSONO HARDJOOETOMO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70480
Agency No. A096-499-638
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Soedarsono Hardjooetomo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
FILED
JUN 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70480 2
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition
for review.
Hardjooetomo does not argue he suffered past persecution in Indonesia, but
fears persecution in the future as an ethnic Chinese Christian. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis,
Hardjooetomo did not establish sufficient individualized risk to establish a clear
probability of future persecution. See id. at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding
of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-
risk evidence”); see also Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003).
We reject Hardjooetomo’s request for a remand for the agency to do a disfavored
group analysis, because the agency already did it. Accordingly, Hardjooetomo’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --