Filed: Dec. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FNU APRILLIVINI, No. 18-73443 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-779-831 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Fnu Aprillivini, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Boa
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FNU APRILLIVINI, No. 18-73443 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-779-831 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Fnu Aprillivini, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Boar..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FNU APRILLIVINI, No. 18-73443
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-779-831
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Fnu Aprillivini, 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, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Zehatye v. Gonzlaes,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
Aprillivini suffered in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the
level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS,
333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003)
(persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment
our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted));
see also Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (no past
persecution where harm to others was not part of “a pattern of persecution closely
tied to” petitioner (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Aprillivini failed to
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Indonesia. See Tamang v.
Holder,
598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[F]ear of future persecution is
weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members living in the
petitioner’s home country are not harmed.” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)); Tampubolon v. Holder,
610 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 2010) (a
petitioner’s membership in the disfavored group of Christian Indonesians is not
sufficient by itself to meet the burden of proof and some evidence of individualized
2 18-73443
risk is necessary for the petitioner to succeed). We reject as unsupported by the
record Aprillivini’s contentions that the agency failed to consider her age or
applied an incorrect legal standard when evaluating her claims for asylum. Thus,
Aprillivini’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Aprillivini failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190. Thus, Aprillivini’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Aprillivini failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See Zheng
v. Holder,
644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,
600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)
(generalized evidence of violence and crime in petitioner’s home country was
insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-73443