FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERLINA CHRISTIANI WINATA; No. 13-70260
HENDRIK SUSANTO LIE,
Agency Nos. A087-702-093
Petitioners, A087-702-094
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Erlina Christiani Winata and Hendrik Susanto Lie, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the government
rebutted petitioners’ presumption of future persecution by establishing a
fundamental change in circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A); see also
Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did
not compel the conclusion that the government failed to rebut the presumption of
future persecution); cf. Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1082, 1091-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We reject petitioners’ contentions that the agency erred in its analysis or
did not consider Winata’s explanations for her numerous lengthy returns to
Indonesia. Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’
CAT claim because they failed to show it is more likely than not that they would
2 13-70260
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Indonesian government.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70260