Case Name: Ulibasa Agustina TUMOING; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-10
Citations: 114 F. App'x 869
Docket Number: No. 03-73848; Agency Nos. A73-889-928, A73-889-927, A73-889-930, A73-889-929
Parties: Ulibasa Agustina TUMOING; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 869–870

Head Matter:
Ulibasa Agustina TUMOING; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73848.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
Cesar R. Fumar, Law Office of Cesar R. Fumar, South San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, OIL, DOJ- — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offlce of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondents.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ulibasa Agustina Tumoing, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions with her husband and children for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of their application for asy lum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of the asylum claim because Tumoing's testimony and asylum application do not demonstrate that her experiences, including harassment and vandalism, rise to the level of harm necessary to compel a finding of persecution. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.1998); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003).
Pursuant to Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2004) (order), petitioners' voluntary departure period will begin to run upon issuance of this court's mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.