FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEDYANA OLIVIA CAROLIEN, No. 08-72104
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-063-439
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Ledyana Olivia Carolien, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her 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.
for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009),
and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Carolien did not
suffer past persecution because she was never personally confronted, threatened, or
attacked. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60; Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,
1182 (9th Cir. 2003). We do not consider Carolien’s contention that the IJ should
have applied a lower burden to her past persecution claim, given that she was a
child at the time of the primary incidents, because she failed to exhaust that issue
before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Even as a member of two disfavored groups, Chinese and Christian, the
record does not compel the conclusion that Carolien demonstrated a sufficiently
individualized threat of persecution to establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly,
Carolien’s asylum claim fails.
Because Carolien failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she
necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72104