Myske Tinneke Podung v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MYSKE TINNEKE PODUNG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73371
Agency No. A088-286-081
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Myske Tinneke Podung, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JAN 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

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.
Podung does not challenge the agency’s finding that the incidents and
emotional harm she experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, do
not rise to the level of persecution. Further, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Podung has not
shown sufficient individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-79 (9th Cir. 2009); cf. Sael v.
Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Podung’s asylum
claim fails.
Because Podung failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her
claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Podung does not raise any arguments in her opening brief regarding
the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-73371

-- 2 of 2 --