Putra v. Holder
This text of 320 F. App'x 672 (Putra v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Yuda Putra, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the robbery Putra suffered as a teenager and the other incidents he described do not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1016-18. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Putra failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because, even if Putra is a member of a disfavored group of Chinese Buddhist Indonesians, he failed to demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Further, Putra’s history of return trips to Indonesia militates against a finding that he has a well-founded fear of persecution. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
320 F. App'x 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putra-v-holder-ca9-2009.