DEVID RUMBAYAN V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-72093 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAR 02 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEVID EDUARD ARNOLUS RUMBAYAN, No. 08-72093 Agency No. A096-499-889 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Devid Eduard Arnolus Rumbayan, 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 asylum * 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). and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. Rumbayan does not challenge the agency s dispositive finding that his asylum application is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party s opening brief are waived). Accordingly, Rumbayan s asylum claim fails. Rumbayan testified that he was never injured in Indonesia on account of his race or religion, and does not contend he suffered past persecution, but he argues he fears future persecution on the basis of his Christian faith and his marriage to an ethnic Chinese Christian woman. Substantial evidence supports the agency s conclusion that Rumbayan failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution because he does not present sufficient evidence of an individualized risk of harm. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2007) ( a general, undifferentiated claim does not suffice); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 ( [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 ). Therefore, Rumbayan s withholding of removal claim fails. 08-72093 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 08-72093
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.
