Rinawati; Tjahaja Pratomo Bong 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RINAWATI; TJAHAJA PRATOMO
BONG,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72227
Agency Nos. A099-739-945
A099-739-946
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.
Rinawati and Tjahaja Pratomo Bong, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for
FILED
JUL 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 09-72227
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the incidents of
harassment and discrimination experienced by petitioners did not rise to the level
of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009).
Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even under a
disfavored group analysis, petitioners did not show sufficient individualized risk to
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 977-79; cf. Sael v.
Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Finally, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to establish there is a pattern or
practice of persecution against Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See Lolong v.
Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178-81 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Accordingly,
petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, their
claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 09-72227
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --