FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONNY SUGIARTO, No. 11-71814
Petitioner, BIA No. A079-513-482
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 26, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Ronny Sugiarto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Zhou v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 864 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the
petition for review.1
Sugiarto contends that he suffered past persecution. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that the cumulative effect of the harms experienced
by Sugiarto did not rise to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d
971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that incidents of mistreatment, including
being stripped naked in front of classmates, being beaten by rioters, and false
arrest, detention, and bribe, did not compel finding of past persecution); Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that two beatings and
robberies, including robbery at knifepoint, and being confronted by a mob during a
riot, did not compel a finding of past persecution).
Sugiarto also contends that he established that he has a well-founded fear of
persecution under a disfavored group analysis. We recognize that Sugiarto is a
member of two disfavored groups because he is both Christian and ethnically
Chinese. See Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 2010);
Halim, 590 F.3d at 978. However, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history
underlying this appeal, we do not recount them here.
2 11-71814
finding that Sugiarto failed to establish a sufficiently individualized risk of harm
under a disfavored group analysis. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-80.
Because Sugiarto failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066;
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Sugiarto failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured upon his return to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-71814