Frederick Delano Paulus; v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDERICK DELANO PAULUS; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71641
Agency Nos. A088-291-013
A088-291-014
A088-291-015
A088-291-016
A088-291-017
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Frederick Delano Paulus, and his family, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for
FILED
JUN 26 2014
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). Petitioner’s request for oral
argument is denied.

-- 1 of 3 --

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). 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), and we deny the petition for review.
We deny petitioners’ motion to take judicial notice of the 2010 and 2011
State Department reports and we do not consider them. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the
administrative record).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners have not
established the incidents Paulus experienced in Indonesia rose to the level of
persecution, where Paulus was never physically harmed or threatened. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (discrimination and
harassment do not constitute persecution); see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (harms to friend and pastor were not part of pattern
closely tied to petitioner). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding
that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Paulus did not show sufficient
individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-79 (9th Cir. 2009); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386
F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Finally, the record does not compel the
12-71641 2

-- 2 of 3 --

conclusion that petitioners established a pattern or practice of persecution against
Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly,
petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, their
claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of a government official if they return to
Indonesia. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-71641 3

-- 3 of 3 --