Susanto

MEMORANDUM **

The Board of Immigration Appeals • (BIA) affirmed without opinion the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of petitioner Daniel Susanto’s asylum application, 1 based on the finding that Susanto’s past experiences did not amount to past persecution and that Susanto did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because there was no “pattern or practice” of persecution against Christians, the Chinese minority, or homosexuals in Indonesia. The IJ failed, however, to consider another legal argument presented by Sus-anto: that he established the fear of future persecution by showing membership in a “disfavored group” coupled with “an individualized risk of being singled out for persecution.” Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir.2004). 2 Although the government contended that our en banc decision in Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), foreclosed this “disfavored group” analysis, we recently held in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.2009) that the disfavored group analysis is available for both asylum and withholding claims, and that Lolong merely reaffirmed the principle that “some evidence of individualized risk is…