FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IMAN COKRO YOELIKO; IMAM No. 09-70697
TAUFIK YOELIKO,
Agency Nos. A095-634-699
Petitioners, A095-629-936
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Iman Cokro Yoeliko and Imam Taufik Yoeliko, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review de novo due process claims,
Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
We reject petitioners’ contention that the agency violated their due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on due process claim).
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners experienced
harms in Indonesia that rise to the level of past persecution. See Wakkary, 558
F.3d at 1059-60 (being twice beaten, robbed, and accosted by a threatening mob
did not compel a past persecution finding); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,
1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and one beating did not compel finding
of past persecution); Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 965-69 (9th Cir. 1998) (repeated
stoning and vandalism of petitioner’s home did not compel finding of past
persecution). In addition, even as members of a disfavored group, petitions have
not shown sufficient individualized risk to establish a clear probability of
persecution in Indonesia. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1185; Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a
2 09-70697
considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence”). Accordingly,
petitioners’ withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not that they would be
tortured in Indonesia by or with the acquiescence of the government. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70697