Sylviana Chandra v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYLVIANA CHANDRA; et al., No. 09-71575
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A088-558-608
A088-558-609
v. A088-558-610
A088-558-611
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sylviana Chandra and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 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 agency’s determination that Chandra
failed to establish that several of the incidents she experienced in Indonesia were
on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 742
(9th Cir. 2009) (assailants’ reference to petitioner’s ethnicity did not compel the
conclusion that ethnicity was a central motivating reason for the attack); Singh v.
INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998) (petitioner must establish mistreatment was
targeted particularly toward her and occurred because of racial or religious
animus). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners’ remaining experiences did not amount to past persecution. See Halim
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that, even as a
member of a disfavored group, Chandra has not established a well-founded fear of
persecution in Indonesia because she has not demonstrated sufficient
individualized risk. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
2 09-71575
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Singh,
134 F.3d at 971.
Finally, petitioners fail to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of
their CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed
waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-71575