FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERNA DWIRAPITA, No. 10-70065
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-357-555
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Erna Dwirapita, 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 relief 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 for substantial evidence 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 agency’s finding that Dwirapita failed to
establish the incidents she suffered in Indonesia, individually or cumulatively, rose
to the level of past persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153
(9th Cir. 2005); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (the
incidents were “disturbing and regrettable” but did not rise to the level of past
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that, even as
a member of a disfavored group, Dwirapita does not have a well-founded fear of
future persecution because she failed to establish that she faces an individualized
risk of harm. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); cf. Sael v.
Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Dwirapita’s asylum
claim fails. We decline to remand for the BIA to consider her claim in light of our
decision in Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010).
Because Dwirapita failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 10-70065
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Dwirapita failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will be
tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68
(9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-70065