Sari Anggriani; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SARI ANGGRIANI; et al.
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71654
Agency Nos. A079-530-672
A079-530-673
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sari Anggriani and her husband, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
MAY 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71654 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law and review for substantial evidence factual findings. See Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Anggriani did
not experience harms in Indonesia amounting to past persecution. See id. at 1059-
60; Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, even as a
member of a disfavored group, the record does not compel the conclusion that
Anggriani established a well-founded fear of persecution in Indonesia because she
did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of persecution. See Halim, 590
F.3d at 979; cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not that they will be tortured
upon return to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
Finally, petitioners’ due process claim fails because the proceedings were
not so fundamentally unfair that Anggriani was prevented from reasonably

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71654 3
presenting her case, and because she failed to demonstrate prejudice. See
Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail
on a due process challenge); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --