Edwin Gilbert Watung 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). Thus, we reject Watung’s
request for oral argument.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN GILBERT WATUNG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71755
Agency No. A096-364-544
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Gilbert Watung, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
FILED
MAR 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71755 2
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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 BIA’s determination that, even under a
disfavored group analysis, Watung failed to present sufficient evidence of
individualized risk to establish it is more likely than not he will be persecuted in
Indonesia. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2009); 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”). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --