Roy Hawu; Simson Hawu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROY HAWU; SIMSON HAWU,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73836
Agency Nos. A096-347-798
A095-629-880
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.
Roy Hawu and Simson Hawu, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
MAY 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-73836 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings and review de novo legal determinations. 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 petitioners failed to
demonstrate the harms they experienced as Chinese Christians in Indonesia,
including thefts, attempted thefts, and various incidents of vandalism, rose to the
level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009)
(concluding no past persecution where petitioner, a Chinese Christian from
Indonesia, testified to various incidents of harassment, denial of medical care,
arrest and detention, and a mob beating due to his ethnicity and religion).
Substantial evidence further supports the agency’s finding that, even under a
disfavored group analysis, petitioners failed to establish sufficient individualized
risk to establish a well-founded fear of future harm. See id. at 978-79 (holding that
petitioner failed to establish sufficient individualized risk to warrant a finding of a
well-founded fear even under a disfavored group analysis). Accordingly, their
asylum claims fail.
Because petitioners have not established eligibility for asylum, they
necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

09-73836 3
Finally, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s findings regarding CAT
relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner
waived CAT claim when he failed to raise it in his brief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --