To Ji Then 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TO JI THEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71669
Agency No. A099-740-700
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
To Ji Then, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-71669 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Because our review is limited to the administrative record, we do not
consider the religious freedom reports Then submitted. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc); cf. Gafoor v. INS, 231 F.3d 645, 655-57 (9th
Cir. 2000). We deny Then’s motion for judicial notice and deny the government’s
motion to strike.
Among other things, Then testified that he faced mistreatment in elementary
and high school, suffered a beating near his church, and had to pay bribes to
government officials. These incidents, even considered cumulatively, do not
compel a finding of past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182
(9th Cir. 2003) (lifetime of harassment and mistreatment including beating and
threats of harm or death was not “so severe as to compel a finding of past
persecution”). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Then
did not show the harms to his parents and brother were directed at him. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (harms to associates
that were not part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to petitioner did not
compel finding of past persecution). In addition, substantial evidence supports the

-- 2 of 3 --

11-71669 3
BIA’s finding that Then failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, even
under a disfavored group analysis, because he did not demonstrate sufficient
individualized risk. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009)
(petitioner failed to show he was individually targeted or likely to be individually
targeted where he “failed to offer any evidence that distinguishes his exposure
from those of all other ethnic Chinese Indonesians”); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d
922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). We reject Then’s request that the court reconsider its
stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution.
Because Then failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, his
claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Then failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --