NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEI KIAUW OEN, No. 15-72461
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-321-732
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 1, 2022**
Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Mei Kiauw Oen, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Oen’s contention that economic losses
related to threats made against her business constitute past persecution, because
she did not raise that contention in the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Oen did not establish
that the incidents she experienced in Indonesia rose to the level of persecution. See
Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Because persecution is an
extreme concept, it does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s conclusion that even under a disfavored-group analysis, Oen
did not show sufficient individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1064-65 (9th Cir.
2009) (“[S]ome evidence of individualized risk is necessary for the petitioner to
succeed.”); see also Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (denying a
petition for review where the petitioner “failed to offer any evidence that
distinguishes his exposure from those of all other ethnic Chinese Indonesians” and
2 15-72461
had family living in Indonesia without being targeted). Thus, Oen’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Oen failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 15-72461