Eko Paku Sadewo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EKO PAKU SADEWO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72970
Agency No. A095-630-138
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Eko Paku Sadewo, 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 and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 11-72970
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Sadewo established changed
or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, Sadewo’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the harm Sadewo
suffered in Indonesia does not rise to the level of persecution. See Halim v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis,
Sadewo failed to show sufficient individualized risk to establish that it is more
likely than not he would be persecuted if removed to Indonesia. See id. at 979; see
also 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 an asylum applicant”). We reject Sadewo’s contention that the
BIA applied the disfavored group analysis incorrectly. Accordingly, Sadewo’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --