FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARLAN HILMAN; EKA No. 08-75212
PRATISTHANI ANAK AGUNG AYU,
Agency Nos. A097-607-017
Petitioners, A097-607-018
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Harlan Hilman and Eka Pratisthani Anak Agung Ayu, 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
*
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).
application for asylum, 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, and we review de
novo the agency’s legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of past persecution because
Hilman did not establish his father mistreated him on account of his Christian
religion, see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865-66 (9th Cir. 2001) (requiring alien
to establish nexus between alleged persecution and a protected ground), and
because he did not show his mistreatment by classmates and teachers rose to the
level of persecution, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003)
(record did not compel finding that Ukrainian Pentecostal Christian who was
“teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed” suffered from past
persecution); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2003) (lifetime
of harassment, threats, and mistreatment including one beating did not compel
finding of past persecution). In the absence of past persecution, petitioners’
humanitarian asylum claim necessarily fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).
Because Hilman failed to demonstrate past persecution, we reject his contention
that he is entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution.
2 08-75212
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Hilman did not
demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution due to either his Christianity or his
United States citizen son. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-78 (9th Cir.
2009).
Because Hilman failed to satisfy the lower burden of proof for asylum, he
necessarily failed to meet the higher clear probability standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Hilman’s CAT
claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-75212