FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORITA HILWANI, No. 08-71206
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-345-837
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH Circuit Judges.
Norita Hilwani, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum and withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports both the IJ’s finding that the harassment
Hilwani experienced on the street and the incident in which a man stole her
necklace were not on account of a protected ground, see Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 962 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (no evidence that persecutors of woman in
violation of Islamic dress standards “knew of her political or religious beliefs”),
and the IJ’s finding that the harm she experienced, even considered in the
aggregate, did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d
336, 339 (9th Cir. 1998).
In addition, the record does not compel the conclusion that Hilwani, as a
moderate Muslim, has demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution even
under disfavored group analysis. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.
2004). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that she did not
meet her burden to show that relocation in Indonesia would not be reasonable. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71206