FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JHON SON TJEN; SANTY CHEN, No. 13-71556
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A099-970-726
A099-727-663
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jhon Son Tjen and Santy Chen, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 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.
2007), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to
establish the harms they suffered, considered cumulatively, rose to the level of
persecution. See id. at 1059-60; see also Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76
(9th Cir. 2009) (no past persecution where petitioner was stripped naked, spat
upon, and threatened as a student; refused medical care by a clinic; and beaten by a
mob of rioters). Substantial evidence further supports the BIA’s finding that
petitioners failed to show sufficient individualized risk, even under a disfavored
group analysis, to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Halim, 590
F.3d at 979. We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA’s analysis was
insufficient. Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners have not established eligibility for asylum, they cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT because
2 13-71556
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-71556