RUDY DJAJA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73444 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUDY DJAJA, No. 11-73444 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-634-715 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. Rudy Djaja, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the * 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). agency s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s determination that the harm Djaja suffered in Indonesia does not rise to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Djaja failed to show sufficient individualized risk to establish that it is more likely than not he would be persecuted if removed to Indonesia. See id. at 979; see also 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 ). We reject Djaja s contentions that the IJ applied the disfavored group analysis incorrectly. Accordingly, Djaja s withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-73444

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.