Case Name: Joicy Eliangke SANUSI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-08
Citations: 299 F. App'x 630
Docket Number: No. 06-70618
Parties: Joicy Eliangke SANUSI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 299
Pages: 630–630

Head Matter:
Joicy Eliangke SANUSI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70618.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 8, 2008.
Dorothy A. Harper, Esquire, Law Office of Dorothy A. Harper, Los Angeles, CA, for PETITIONER.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Shelley Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, Oil, Barry J. Pettinato, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. Petr. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joicy Eliangke Sanusi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding of no past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Sanusi has not established the comparatively low level of individualized risk required under Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004) to compel a finding of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Cf id. Accordingly, Sanusi'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.