Budhijanto Sukirdjan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BUDHIJANTO SUKIRDJAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70283
Agency No. A096-203-771
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Budhijanto Sukirdjan, 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 asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Sukirdjan failed to
demonstrate extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse the delay in filing his
asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, we deny the
petition as to Sukirdjan’s asylum claim.
Sukirdjan testified to mistreatment in Indonesia, including harassment,
students throwing rocks at his middle school, jumping off a bus and suffering
minor injuries, and the theft of his brother’s motorcycle. The record does not
compel the conclusion that Sukirdjan’s experiences, even considered cumulatively,
amount to past persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (being beaten by
youths, robbed of sandals and pocket money, and accosted by a threatening mob
did not compel a past persecution finding); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,
1181-82 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and mistreatment since early
childhood and beating resulting in facial bruises and two broken ribs did not
compel a past persecution finding). Thus, contrary to Sukirdjan’s contention, he is
not entitled to a presumption of future fear. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
11-70283 2

-- 2 of 3 --

determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Sukirdjan has not
established it is more likely than not he will be persecuted if returned to Indonesia
because he has not demonstrated sufficient individualized risk. See Hoxha, 319
F.3d at 1185; 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”). Accordingly, Sukirdjan’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Sukirdjan failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1067-68.
We reject Sukirdjan’s arguments that the agency failed to properly evaluate
his claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-70283 3

-- 3 of 3 --