Case ID: f-appx_635/html/0393-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Legi PRIYODE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70974.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 3, 2016.
    David M. Haghighi, Law Offices of David M. Haghighi, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Drew Brinkman, 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: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Legi Priyode, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 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). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the incidents of harm Priyode experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60; see Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir.2009) (evidence, including incidents of mistreatment during youth, did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Priyode failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of harm to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979. We reject Priyode’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence or applied an incorrect legal standard. Thus, Priyode’s asylum claim fails.

Because Priyode did not 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).

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