NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PIETER EKA JAYASAPUTRA, No. 15-70270
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-456-296
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Pieter Eka Jayasaputra, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2009), and
we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jayasaputra’s
past harm, considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See
id. at 975-76 (applicant who was stripped, spat on, threatened, and denied medical
attention as a child, wrongfully detained by police, and beaten by a mob did not
establish past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Jayasaputra did not establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution because, even under a disfavored group analysis, he failed to show
sufficient individualized risk of persecution. See id. at 977-79. We reject
Jayasaputra’s contention that the BIA committed legal error in requiring that he
show a particularized threat of harm as a member of a disfavored group. See id.
Thus, we deny the petition as to Jayasaputra’s asylum claim.
Because Jayasaputra did not establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding
of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190
(9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of
2 15-70270
Jayasaputra’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir.
2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-70270