Case Name: Marisa ATIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-24
Citations: 555 F. App'x 732
Docket Number: No. 12-73240
Parties: Marisa ATIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 555
Pages: 732–733

Head Matter:
Marisa ATIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73240.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 24, 2014.
Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
Jessica Eden Sherman, 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: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Marisa Atin, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that the incidents of mistreatment Atin suffered as a child and young adult, even cumulatively, rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (two incidents of beating and robbery as a minor and being accosted by mob did not compel finding of past persecution); Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir.2009) (mistreatment as youth and beating by rioters did not compel finding of past persecution). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Atin failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because, even under disfavored group analysis, she did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk. See id. at 979 (petitioner failed to show he was individually targeted or likely to be individually targeted where he "failed to offer any evidence that distinguishes his exposure from those of all other ethnic Chinese Indonesians"); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Atin's asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.