Agus Raymond Pratomo v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AGUS RAYMOND PRATOMO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71671
Agency No. A078-113-194
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Agus Raymond Pratomo, 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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-71671
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the incidents
Pratomo experienced in Indonesia, considered cumulatively, do not rise to the level
of persecution on account of his Chinese ethnicity and Christian religion. See id.
at 1059-60; Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s finding that, even under a disfavored group
analysis, Pratomo has not shown sufficient individualized risk of harm to establish
a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-79. Thus,
Pratomo’s asylum claim fails.
Because Pratomo failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his
claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Pratomo failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject Pratomo’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-71671
contention that the agency failed to consider record evidence. Thus, Pratomo’s
CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --