AGUS SANTOSO V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-73839 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 24 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AGUS BUDI SANTOSO, Petitioner, No. 08-73839 Agency No. A098-511-208 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Agus Budi Santoso, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction * 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). 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. Santoso does not contend he suffered past persecution, but contends he faces future persecution based on his family s disappointment that he is no longer a practicing Muslim and general harm by Muslims. Substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Santoso does not face a clear probability of future persecution. See Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2008); Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (a general, undifferentiated claim is not a basis for relief). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency s denial of CAT relief because Santoso failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-73839

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.