Irma Iyanah Moerad v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IRMA IYANAH MOERAD,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75138
Agency No. A096-071-482
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Irma Iyanah Moerad, 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, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-75138 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review findings of fact for substantial
evidence and questions of law de novo.” Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118,
1121 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that even if Moerad
were eligible for asylum, she did not suffer past persecution, see Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003), and did not demonstrate an
individualized risk of future persecution as a member of a disfavored group, cf.
Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927–28 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny the
petition as to Moerad’s asylum claim.
Because Moerad failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
cannot demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the determination that Moerad
failed to establish that she would more likely than not be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of government officials if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009). We therefore deny the petition as to
her CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --