Vely Andajani 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VELY ANDAJANI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73411
Agency No. A088-271-054
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Vely Andajani, a Christian and ethnically Chinese native and citizen of
Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
FILED
JUN 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-73411 2
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, see Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2009), and
we deny the petition for review.
Even if all of the incidents of harassment Andajani experienced in Indonesia
were on account of a protected ground, the record does not compel the conclusion
that they rose to the level of persecution, either individually or cumulatively. See
id. at 975-76 (incidents suffered by ethnic Chinese petitioner in Indonesia,
considered in the aggregate, did not amount to persecution); Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that, even under a
disfavored group analysis, Andajani failed to establish sufficient individualized
risk of persecution to show a well-founded fear of persecution. See Halim, 590
F.3d at 979; cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2004). In addition,
the evidence does not establish a pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic
Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979; Wakkary, 558 F.3d
at 1061-62. Further, Andajani’s contention that the IJ failed to analyze her
experiences in the context of widespread discrimination and persecution of Chinese
in Indonesia is belied by the record. Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-73411 3
Because Andajani has failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Halim, 590 F.3d at 980 n.7.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because
Andajani failed to establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --