FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NANIK MELIANI, No. 10-72706
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-703-332
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Nanik Meliani, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 jurisdiction under
*
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).
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 deny the petition
for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Meliani established changed
circumstances to excuse the delay in filing her asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam). We reject Meliani’s contention that the IJ exhibited bias. Accordingly,
Meliani’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Meliani failed to
establish her experiences in Indonesia rose to the level of persecution. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (petitioner’s account of being beaten, robbed of
sandals and pocket money, and accosted by a mob did not compel a finding of past
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that,
even under a disfavored group analysis, Meliani failed to demonstrate sufficient
individualized risk of persecution to establish eligibility for withholding of
removal. See id. at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to
adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail
than would an asylum applicant”). We deny Meliani’s request for further
2 10-72706
consideration of her claim under a disfavored group analysis. Accordingly, her
withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Meliani did not establish that it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by the Indonesian government or with its consent or acquiescence if she
returned to Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-72706