Case ID: f-appx_620/html/0633-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KWET LIONG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73033.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2015.
    Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, Ca, for Petitioner.
    Anthony John Messuri, Esquire, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kwet Liong, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dis-. missing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Liong failed to establish his experiences in Indonesia cumulatively rose to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (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 BIA’s conclusion that even under a disfavored group analysis, Liong did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of persecution to establish eligibility for asylum. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir.2009). Thus, Liong’s asylum claim fails.

Because Liong failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, Liong does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir.2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.