Gideon Reza Tanjung v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GIDEON REZA TANJUNG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72957
Agency No. A095-634-671
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Gideon Reza Tanjung, 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 claim for withholding of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72957 2
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 BIA’s decision that the harms suffered by
Tanjung, even cumulatively, did not rise to the level of past persecution. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence also
supports the BIA’s finding that Tanjung failed to establish sufficient individualized
risk of persecution to show eligibility for relief. See id. at 977-79; Wakkary, 558
F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a
considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would
an asylum applicant”). In addition, the evidence does not establish a pattern or
practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary,
558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly, Tanjung’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --