Tarsissius Tedja 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TARSISSIUS TEDJA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70241
Agency No. A088-558-906
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Tarsissius Tedja, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
SEP 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70241 2
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 Tedja’s past
experiences, even considered cumulatively, do not rise to the level of persecution.
See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003); Prasad v. INS, 47
F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found
[these incidents constituted] past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder
would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original). Substantial evidence also
supports the BIA’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis,
Tedja failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of harm to establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979-
80 (9th Cir. 2009). Consequently, his asylum claim fails.
Because Tedja failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See id. at 980 n.7.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --