Novi Lumentah v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOVI LUMENTAH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73192
Agency No. A096-053-957
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Novi Lumentah, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
NOV 26 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 --

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Lumentah failed to
establish past persecution because, even considered cumulatively, his experiences
in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d
971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.
2003) (harassment, threats, and one beating did not compel finding of past
persecution). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that,
even under a disfavored group analysis, Lumentah failed to establish sufficient
individualized risk of harm to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. See
Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-79; Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir.
2007) (en banc) (individualized risk requires showing petitioner’s fear is “distinct
from [that] felt by all other ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia”). Accordingly,
Lumentah’s asylum claim fails. In light of our conclusion regarding the BIA’s
disfavored group analysis, we need not address Lumentah’s contentions regarding
the BIA’s alleged errors in upholding other parts of the IJ’s decision.
11-73192 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Because Lumentah has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye,
453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, Lumentah does not raise any arguments regarding the denial of CAT
relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues
not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73192 3

-- 3 of 3 --