DJOHAN WIDJONO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-72192 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DJOHAN WIDJONO, No. 10-72192 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-629-803 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Djohan Widjono, 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 ( IJ ) decision denying his claim for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ยง 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). the agency s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. This case returns to us after remand to the agency to consider Widjono s claims in light of our intervening decisions in Wakkary and Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence supports the agency s determination that Widjono s incident on a bus and experiences during the 1998 riots in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 975-76; Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059 ( [p]ersecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive ). In addition, the record does not compel the finding that the attack and robbery Widjono experienced while riding his motorcycle constituted persecution on account of a protected ground. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence also supports the agency s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Widjono failed to establish a clear probability of future harm to qualify for withholding of removal. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 ( An applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of 2 10-72192 individualized-risk evidence to prevail[.] ). We reject Widjono s contention that the agency s analysis was insufficient. Consequently, Widjono s withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand Widjono s case to the IJ. See Romero-Ruiz, 538 F.3d at 1062 ( The BIA abuses its discretion if its decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 10-72192
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.
