FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATHALIA ANTONIUS, No. 10-72201
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-885-026
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Nathalia Antonius, 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”). 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),
and we review de novo due process claims, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532,
535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Antonius’s experiences in Indonesia, including verbal harassment and two
robberies, do not compel a finding of past persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590
F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (incidents of mistreatment, including arbitrary
arrest and detention by police and beating at the hands of rioters, did not compel
finding of past persecution). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Antonius failed to
show sufficient individualized risk to establish eligibility for asylum. See id. at
977-79. Because the BIA already applied disfavored group analysis based on
Antonius’s status as a Chinese Christian, we decline to remand for further
proceedings in light of Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Antonius’s asylum claim.
Because Antonius failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, she
necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 10-72201
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Antonius failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not she will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68. Accordingly,
Antonius’s CAT claim fails.
Finally, we reject Antonius’s due process claim because she failed to
establish that she was prejudiced by the “indiscernible” notations in the transcript
of her hearing before the immigration judge. See Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d
1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (to prevail on a due process claim, petitioner must
prove that alleged violation prejudiced her interests).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-72201