Karamony, et al v. Holder, No. 07-74988 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZEATLY KARAMONY, No. 07-74988 Petitioner, Agency No. A096-346-448 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 10, 2010 ** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Zeatly Karamony, 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 application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, * 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). Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s denial of withholding because the harassment Karamony suffered during the 1998 riots does not rise to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, Karamony has not provided sufficient evidence that she has been, or is likely to be, specifically targeted for persecution as a Chinese Christian in Indonesia. See Lolong, 484 F.3d at 1180 n.4 (rejecting petitioner s claim where she failed to show that she was more likely to be targeted for persecution or harassment than any other member of Indonesia s Chinese Christian community ); see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) ( An applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail ). Accordingly, Karamony s withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-74988

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.