N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

M ARLINDA ER

NI KAUR OW , Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFF B . SESSIONS, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-71807 Age n c y No. A096-144-531
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 Fe brua

ry 9, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER , B YB EE, a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. M arlinda Erni Ka urow, a native and c itiz e n of Indone sia , pe t itions for
re vie w of a

fina l orde r of re m ova l from the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA). The B IA dism isse d Ka

urow’ s a ppe a l of a n im m igrat ion judge ’ s (IJ’ s) orde r



# FIL ED
FEB 15 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).de ny ing he r a pplic a tions for a sy lum

an d withholding of re

m o va l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition. 1. The IJ a

nd B IA de nie d Ka

urow’ s a pplic a tions for a s y lum

an d withholding of rem o v a l be c a use : (1) he r e nc ounte rs with theM uslim politic a l pa

rty did not riseto the le ve l of pa s t pe rse c ution; a n d (2) she fa ile d to show a n individua liz e d

risk of future pe rse c ution unde r the disfa vore d group a na ly sis. Ka urow a rgue s tha t ne ithe r finding is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . W e disa gre e .

“ Pe rse c ution is ‘ an

e x tre m e c onc e pt tha

t doe s not inc lude e v e ry

sort of tre a tm e n t our soc i e ty

re ga rds a s offe nsive .’ ” W

ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1059 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting N agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th C ir. 2003)). Ka

urow te stifie d

tha t m e m be rs of the M uslim

politic a l pa

rty hit he r c ar with the ir ha

nds while shouting “ Kill C hristia ns!” whe n she drove by

a politic a l de m onstra

tion. B ut she wa s a

ble to drive away

unha rm e d. Around thesa

m e tim e , riote rs thre w roc ks a

t he r house , broke a

window, a

nd a ga in shoute d “ Kill C hristia n s!” but ne ithe r she nor a ny of he r fa m ily m e m

b e rs we re injure d. The se
e nc ounte rs a

re insuffic ie nt to c o m

pe l a finding of pa st pe rse c ution. Se e id. a t 1059–60 (holding the

re c ord did not c om

p e l a finding of pa s t pe rse c ution whe re the p e titione r wa s “ a c c oste d by a thre a te ning m ob while his fa m ily wa s driving,”
2am ong othe r disc rim inatory a c t s); se e also Halim v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 971, 975–76

(9th C ir. 2009) (sa

m e whe re pe titione r “ wa s be a te n by a m ob of riote rs” ); Singh v

. IN S , 134 F.3d 962, 969 (9th C i r. 1998) (sa m e whe re pe t itione r a lle ge d “ that pe ople thre w roc ks a

t he r house , da

m a ge d som e of he r prope rty , [and] burgla riz e d he r hom e ” ). The re c ord a lso doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Ka urow e sta blishe d a
we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution unde r the disfa v ore d group a

na ly s is. Ka urow fa ile d

to de m onstra

te an “ individua liz e d risk of be ing single d out for pe rse c ution” a s a

C hristia n Indone sia

n. Se e Sae l v . Ashc r oft , 386 F.3d 922, 925 (9th C ir. 2004). Theatta c ks on he r c ar an d house took pla c e during the 1998 riots in Indone sia . The riote rs did not spe c ific a lly re fe r to he r by nam e , a

nd she offe re d
no e vide n c e tha

t she w a s ta

rge t e d on a

n ongoing ba sis. C

f. id. at 927–28. Ka

urow
re m a ine d in Indone sia for four y e ars a fte r the atta c ks without furthe r inc ide nt. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de c ision tha

t Ka urow fa ile d to show she

“ ha s be e n individually

ta rge te d, or is like ly

to be individually

ta rge te d,” be c a

use she is C h ristia

n. Se e Halim , 590 F.3d a t 979. 2. Ka urow a lso a

rgue s tha t the IJ a nd B IA e rre d by

tre a ting he r and he r son’ s a sy lum

a pplic a tions inc onsiste ntly . Ka urow did not raise this issue be fore the B IA. “ [W ] e hav e jurisdic tion to re vie w a fina l orde r of re m ova l a

nd the issue s
3ra ise d in a

pe tition for re vie w only

if ‘ the a lie n ha s e xha

uste d a ll a dm inistra

tive
re m e die s a

v a ila ble to the a lie n a s of right.’ ” F igue roa v . Muk

ase y , 543 F.3d 487, 492 (9th C i r. 2008) (quoting 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(d)(1)). “ A pe titione r c a nn ot sa tisfy the e xha ustion re q uire m e nt by m aking a

ge ne ra l c ha lle nge to the IJ’ s de c ision, but,
ra the r, m ust spe c ify

whic h issue s form

the ba sis of the a

ppe a l.” Zara v . Ashc roft , 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th C ir. 2004). B e c a use Ka urow’ s c ha l le nge to the IJ’ s de c ision did not give

the B IA notic e and a

n opportunity to c orre c t a ny e rror re late d to the a lle ge d inc onsiste nc y , Ka urow fa i le d to e xha

ust this c l a im
. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4