Case ID: f-appx_514/html/0700-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Washington SITANGGANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71575.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed April 3, 2013.
    Bruce Cholei Wong, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nicole Prairie, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Washington Sitanggang, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing 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 factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the harassment, vandalism, and one incident of physical harm that Sitanggang experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir.2009); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (harassment, threats, and one beating unconnected with any particular threat did not compel finding of past persecution). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Sitang-gang did not show sufficient individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-79; cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Sitanggang’s asylum claim fails.

Because Sitanggang did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Sitang-gang failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

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