FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LINNEKE PUSPASARI, No. 10-73381
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-724-948
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.
Linneke Puspasari, 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 the
agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s past persecution finding, because
Puspasari’s experiences in Indonesia, including the attack on her workplace during
the May 1998 riots and the robbery of her purse in 2006, even considered
cumulatively, do not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1059-60 (two beatings and robberies, and being accosted by a hostile mob did not
compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the
BIA’s conclusion that Puspasari, as an ethnic Chinese, Christian woman, failed to
demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of harm under a disfavored group
analysis to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590
F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner failed to show individual risk of harm
where he “failed to offer any evidence that distinguishes his exposure from those
of all other ethnic Chinese Indonesians”). Further, substantial evidence supports
the BIA’s conclusion that Puspasari failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of membership in her claimed social group of ethnic
Chinese, Christian women with a United States born citizen child. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner must provide credible,
2 10-73381
direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts that would support a reasonable
fear of persecution). Finally, we reject Puspasari’s contention that this case should
be remanded under Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010), because
the BIA considered this case in analyzing her claims. Accordingly, Puspasari’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Puspasari failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Lastly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion Puspasari has not
established it is more likely than not she will be tortured upon return to Indonesia.
See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068. Accordingly, her CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-73381