Hasiholan Simanjuntak v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HASIHOLAN SIMANJUNTAK,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73098
Agency No. A088-287-920
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Hasiholan Simanjuntak, 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
FILED
MAY 17 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 2 --

for substantial evidence the agency’s 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 Simanjuntak failed
to establish his experiences in Indonesia, cumulatively, rose to the level of
persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (being beaten and robbed on two occasions, and
accosted by a mob did not compel finding of past persecution). We reject
Simanjuntak’s contentions that the agency ignored or mischaracterized the
evidence in analyzing past persecution. Substantial evidence also supports the
BIA’s finding that even under a disfavored group analysis, Simanjuntak failed to
demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of persecution to establish eligibility for
asylum. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 978 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, his
asylum claim fails.
Because Simanjuntak failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73098 2

-- 2 of 2 --