Megawati v. Holder , 382 F. App'x 591 ( 2010 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
ESTHER MEGAWATI, No. 05-73410
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-446-956
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Esther Megawati, 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 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, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and
we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harms
Megawati witnessed and her fear during the anti-Chinese riots and the November
1998 incident, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of
persecution. See id. at 1059-60. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
finding that Megawati does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution
because, even as a member of a disfavored group, Megawati failed to demonstrate
the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d
1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (objective well-founded fear not
established because applicant made a general, undifferentiated claim). In addition,
the record does not compel the conclusion that Megawati established a pattern or
practice of persecution of Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d
at 1060-62.
Because Megawati failed to establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that she cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 05-73410