SOEDARSONO HARDJOOETOMO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-70480 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUN 29 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SOEDARSONO HARDJOOETOMO, Petitioner, No. 10-70480 Agency No. A096-499-638 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 26, 2012 ** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Soedarsono Hardjooetomo, 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). Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. Hardjooetomo does not argue he suffered past persecution in Indonesia, but fears persecution in the future as an ethnic Chinese Christian. Substantial evidence supports the agency s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Hardjooetomo did not establish sufficient individualized risk to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See id. at 1066 ( [a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualizedrisk evidence ); see also Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003). We reject Hardjooetomo s request for a remand for the agency to do a disfavored group analysis, because the agency already did it. Accordingly, Hardjooetomo s withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-70480

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.