FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
INDRATATI SELAMET, No. 13-72182
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-129-499
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
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.
Indratati Selamet, 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 de novo questions of law and
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the incidents Selamet
experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, do not rise to the level of
persecution. See id. at 1059-60; Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir.
2009). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that, under a
disfavored group analysis, Selamet has not shown sufficient individualized risk to
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-79.
We reject Selamet’s contention that the agency applied the disfavored group
analysis incorrectly. Accordingly, Selamet’s asylum claim fails.
Because Selamet failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her
claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Selamet failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See Silaya
v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-72182