FRANS BUNYAMIN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72036 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 24 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANS BUNYAMIN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-72036 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-025-053 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Frans Bunyamin, 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. 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). the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Bunyamin claims he suffered past persecution and established a clear probability of future persecution based on his membership in a disfavored group of Chinese Christians in Indonesia. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Bunyamin’s past mistreatment, including discrimination, harassment, being robbed while in school, and having stones thrown at his home in a threatening manner, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (no showing of past persecution where Chinese Christian was harassed, threatened, discriminated against, wrongfully arrested, and beaten by a mob in Indonesia). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that, under a disfavored group analysis, Bunyamin failed to establish sufficient individualized risk to show it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted in Indonesia. See id. at 978-80; see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[a]n application for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum 2 14-72036 applicant”). Thus, Bunyamin’s withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-72036
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.
