Atrine Lalenoh 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ATRINE LALENOH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73413
Agency No. A088-089-852
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Atrine Lalenoh, native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-73413 2
§ 1252. We review de novo legal findings and review for substantial evidence
factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny Lalenoh’s petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Lalenoh did not
suffer past persecution. See id. at 1059-60. While her experiences include, among
other things, attending several churches that were later burned or destroyed and
being threatened by a business competitor, a reasonable fact-finder would not be
compelled to find that they rose to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder,
590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009); cf. Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067,
1074-76 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing economic persecution where severe
harassment, threats, physical violence, and discrimination made it almost
impossible for petitioner to earn a living). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that even under a disfavored group analysis, Lalenoh failed to
establish a risk of individualized harm sufficient to demonstrate a well-founded
fear of persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 978-80. Her asylum claim fails.
Because Lalenoh could not meet her burden of establishing eligibility for
asylum, the agency correctly found she could not meet the heavier burden of
qualifying for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-73413 3
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Lalenoh failed to establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured if
she returns to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --