CHRISTONY HARAHAP and CHANDRA SARAGIH v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
The Honorable Miranda Du, District Judge for the U.S. District Court***
for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTONY HARAHAP and
CHANDRA SARAGIH,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70221
Agency Nos. A096-356-388
A096-364-570
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 7, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DU, District Judge.***
Petitioners Christony Harahap and Chandra Saragih, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
FILED
JUN 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of their claims for withholding of
removal. Petitioners did not challenge the BIA’s denial of their applications for
asylum or for protection under Convention Against Torture; therefore, these claims
are waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioners did not
suffer past persecution. Petitioners were victims of crime and discrimination at
least in part on account of their Christian faith. However, these experiences,
considered individually or cumulatively, do not compel the conclusion that
Petitioners suffered past persecution. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059–60
(9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners are
not entitled to withholding of removal based on their disfavored-group status.
Petitioners’ “showing of ‘disfavor’ was relatively low, [so] it only slightly offsets
the need to show individual risk.” See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th
Cir. 2009). Petitioners’ individual claims were undercut by their families’
continued residence in Indonesia without harm. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015,
1022 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioners did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk
to show it is more likely than not that they would be persecuted in Indonesia. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need

-- 2 of 3 --

to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail
than would an asylum applicant”).
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --