Case Name: Sister Martini SUTEDJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-10
Citations: 478 F. App'x 422
Docket Number: No. 09-71645
Parties: Sister Martini SUTEDJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 478
Pages: 422–423

Head Matter:
Sister Martini SUTEDJA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71645.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 10, 2012.
Joseph Steven Porta, Esquire, Law Offices of Cohen Porta & Kim, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Drew Brinkman, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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
Sister Martini Sutedja, 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 the agency's factual findings, and we review de novo the agency's legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.
Sutedja concedes that her experiences as an ethnic Chinese Christian woman do not rise to the level of persecution, but she contends they establish a well-founded fear under a disfavored group analysis. We disagree. Even under a disfavored group analysis, the record does not compel the conclusion that Sutedja has established a well-founded fear of persecution, because she has not established sufficient individualized risk of harm. See Halim, v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-80 (9th Cir.2009); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Sutedja's asylum claim fails.
Finally, because Sutedja failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. 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.