Case Name: Esther MEGAWATI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-08
Citations: 382 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 05-73410
Parties: Esther MEGAWATI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 591–591

Head Matter:
Esther MEGAWATI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73410.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 8, 2010.
Ebby S. Bakhtiar, David M. Haghighi, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Larry P. Cote, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Esther Megawati, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that the harms Mega-wati witnessed and her fear during the anti-Chinese riots and the November 1998 incident, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60. Substantial evidence also supports the agency's finding that Megawati does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution because, even as a member of a disfavored group, Megawati failed to demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (objective well-founded fear not established because applicant made a general, undifferentiated claim). In addition, the record does not compel the conclusion that Megawati established a pattern or practice of persecution of Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62.
Because Megawati failed to establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows that she cannot meet the more stringent standard 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.