FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NO NAME GIVEN LINA; WAHYU No. 09-73499
CAHYADI TANG,
Agency Nos. A088-223-589
Petitioners, A088-223-588
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Lina and Wahyu Cahyadi Tang, 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,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 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.
Lina claimed mistreatment on multiple occasions by native Indonesians
because of her Chinese ethnicity, including numerous instances of groping on
crowded buses when she was a child, one robbery at knife-point, and one occasion
when she was physically injured. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding
that these events, even viewed cumulatively, do not rise to the level of past
persecution. See id. at 1060 (“We cannot say... that a reasonable factfinder would
be compelled to conclude that these experiences, without more, cumulatively
amount to past persecution.”) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that even under a disfavored
group analysis Lina did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of
persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.
Because Lina failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 09-73499
Finally, Lina does not challenge the agency’s denial of her CAT claim. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-73499