Nia Andalia v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 439 F. App'x 592 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 22 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NIA ANDALIA,                                      No. 08-71657
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A098-824-913
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 15, 2011 **
    Before:        CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Nia Andalia, 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 and withholding
    of removal. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for
    *
    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).
    substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 
    558 F.3d 1049
    , 1056 (9th
    Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the threats to Andalia’s
    family did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Mendez-Gutierrez v.
    Ashcroft, 
    340 F.3d 865
    , 870 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (“unspecified threats” received by
    Mexican national not “sufficiently menacing to constitute past persecution”). In
    addition, the record does not compel the conclusion that Andalia has demonstrated
    a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 
    333 F. 3d 1012
    ,
    1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s claims “too speculative to be credited as a basis
    for fear of future persecution”). Accordingly, Andalia failed to establish eligibility
    for asylum.
    Further, because Andalia failed to meet the lower burden of proof for
    asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v.
    Gonzales, 
    453 F.3d 1182
    , 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    08-71657
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-71657

Citation Numbers: 439 F. App'x 592

Judges: Canby, O'Scannlain, Fisher

Filed Date: 6/22/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024