N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FNU JOKO, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-72174 Age n c y No. A088-125-412 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2015 * * B e fore : SILVERM AN, B YB EE, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Joko, a native and c i tiz e n of Indone sia , pe titions for revie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dismissing his a ppe a l from

an im m i gration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c i sion de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, and re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture (“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is 

# FIL ED OCT 21 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).gove rne d

by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c t ua l findings. W

ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C i r. 2009). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The IJ de te rm ine d Joko’ s pa st e xpe rie nc e s of ha rm we re not on a c c ount of his C hine se e thnic ity

or did not rise

to thele ve l of pe rse c ution, a nd theB IA a ffirm e d the IJ’ s c onc lusion. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a g e nc y ’ s de te rm i nation. Se eParussimov a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th C ir. 2009) (the REAL ID Ac t

“ re quire s tha

t a prote c te d ground repre s e nt ‘ o ne c e ntra l re a son’ for an a sy lum a p plic ant’ s pe rse c ution” ); Halim v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th C ir. 2009) (inc ide nts of mistre atm e nt, c um ulat ive l y , did not c om

p e l a finding of pe rse c ution). W e re

je c t Joko’ s c onte ntions tha t the a ge nc y

a p p lie d a n inc orre c t le ga l sta nda rd or m i sinte rpre te d

the re c ord. Substa

ntia l e vide n c e a lso supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t e ve n unde r a

disfa vore d group a

na ly sis, Joko did not de m onstra

te suffic ie nt individualiz e d risk of pe rse c ution to e sta blish e ligibility

for a sy lum . Se eHalim , 590 F.3d a t 979. Thus, Joko’ s a s y lum c l a im fa ils. B e c a use Joko fa i le d to e sta

blish e ligibility

for a sy lum , he ne c e ssa

rily fa ile d to e s ta b lish e l igibility

for withholding of rem o va l . Se eZe haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2006).

1 3 - 7 2 1 7 4 2Fina lly , we la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Joko’ s c onte ntions c ha lle nging the IJ’ s de nia l of his C AT c l a im be c a use he fa ile d to ra ise the m to theB IA, se eBarron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th C ir. 2004), a nd there c ord doe s not support Joko’ s c onte ntion tha

t the B IA re a c he d the m e rits of his C AT c la im . W e de ny a s unne c e s sa

ry Joko’ s m o t ion to a s sign his c a se to a m e rits pa ne l . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 2 1 7 4 3