FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEI SIANG CHUNG, No. 11-71101
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-014-195
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Mei Siang Chung, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Chung’s
experiences in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, do not rise to the level of
past persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (beatings and robberies by native Indonesian
youth and being accosted by hostile mob did not amount to past persecution); see
also Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006) (economic
deprivation that did not threaten petitioner’s life or freedom did not compel finding
of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Chung has not
established a well-founded fear of persecution because she has not demonstrated
sufficient individualized risk. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 978-79 (9th Cir.
2009); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly,
Chung’s asylum claim fails.
Because Chung failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 11-71101
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Chung failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will be tortured
upon return to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-71101