FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 29 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUSI LO, No. 11-73204
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-320-499
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Susi Lo, 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 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for
review.
Even if Lo’s testimony was credible, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that Lo failed to establish she suffered harm rising to the level of
past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006)
(persecution “does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive.”) (internal quotations omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the
finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Lo has not shown sufficient
individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-79 (9th Cir. 2009); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386
F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Lo’s asylum claim fails.
Because Lo failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows
that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye,
453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, Lo did not challenge the agency’s denial of her CAT claim. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-73204