YUSAK ROMPAS V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-71995 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YUSAK ROMPAS, No. 13-71995 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-629-981 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 23, 2014 ** Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Yusak Rompas, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from the 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. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s finding that the harms Rompas experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Rompas failed to provide sufficient evidence of individualized harm to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 ( An applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum applicant . . . . ). Thus, Rompas withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-71995

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.