HASIHOLAN SIMANJUNTAK V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73098 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HASIHOLAN SIMANJUNTAK, Petitioner, No. 11-73098 Agency No. A088-287-920 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 14, 2013** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Hasiholan Simanjuntak, 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 decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * 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). for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Simanjuntak failed to establish his experiences in Indonesia, cumulatively, rose to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (being beaten and robbed on two occasions, and accosted by a mob did not compel finding of past persecution). We reject Simanjuntak s contentions that the agency ignored or mischaracterized the evidence in analyzing past persecution. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA s finding that even under a disfavored group analysis, Simanjuntak failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of persecution to establish eligibility for asylum. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 978 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails. Because Simanjuntak failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-73098

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.