FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN DJOHAN SAMIADJI; MEIVY No. 12-70905
VIKE POLUAN,
Agency Nos. A088-320-632
Petitioners, A088-320-633
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Djohan Samiadji and Meivy Vike Poluan, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Samiadji contends that, as an ethnic Chinese Christian, he experienced
problems including mistreatment in elementary and high school, witnessing the
1998 riots, being asked to attend a mosque, and being threatened in connection
with his brother-in-law’s business difficulties. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish past persecution because,
even considered cumulatively, Samiadji’s experiences did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003)
(discrimination, harassment, and physical encounters without any significant
physical violence did not compel finding of past persecution); Hoxha v. Ashcroft,
319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats constituted harassment).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because, even under
disfavored group analysis, they did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk
of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2009).
Petitioners failed to exhaust their nexus challenge to the IJ’s finding. See Barron
2 12-70905
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). We reject petitioners’ contention
that the BIA erred in its decision. Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum,
their claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia.
See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68. We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA
failed to properly evaluate the evidence regarding his CAT claim. See Najmabadi
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA “does not have to write an
exegesis on every contention”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-70905