FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FNU JOKO, No. 13-72174
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-125-412
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Joko, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 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). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ determined Joko’s past experiences of harm were not on account of
his Chinese ethnicity or did not rise to the level of persecution, and the BIA
affirmed the IJ’s conclusion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009)
(the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’
for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76
(9th Cir. 2009) (incidents of mistreatment, cumulatively, did not compel a finding
of persecution). We reject Joko’s contentions that the agency applied an incorrect
legal standard or misinterpreted the record. Substantial evidence also supports the
BIA’s conclusion that even under a disfavored group analysis, Joko did not
demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of persecution to establish eligibility for
asylum. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979. Thus, Joko’s asylum claim fails.
Because Joko failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 13-72174
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Joko’s contentions challenging the
IJ’s denial of his CAT claim because he failed to raise them to the BIA, see Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004), and the record does not support
Joko’s contention that the BIA reached the merits of his CAT claim.
We deny as unnecessary Joko’s motion to assign his case to a merits panel.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-72174