FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AGEK, No. 12-74237
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-459-746
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Agek, 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 withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s 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 the incidents
Agek experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the
level of past persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2009);
see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did not
compel finding of past persecution where petitioner was discriminated against and
harassed, but suffered no significant physical violence). Because Agek failed to
demonstrate past persecution, she did not have a rebuttable presumption of future
harm. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). Further, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Agek failed
to establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of her Chinese
ethnicity. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979; Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“An applicant
for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of
individualized-risk evidence to prevail[.]”). Consequently, Agek’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Agek’s
CAT claim because she failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not she would
2 12-74237
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in
Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-74237