Lauwrens Walojo; Leliana Wwijaya Kwo v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAUWRENS WALOJO; LELIANA W
WIJAYA KWO,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70389
Agency Nos. A095-302-530
A095-302-531
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Lauwrens Walojo and Leliana W. Wijaya Kwo, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
FILED
JAN 26 2016
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 3 --

Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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. 2007), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions based on business
ownership and having a child born and raised in the United States, because they
failed to raise these issues before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even under a
disfavored group analysis, petitioners failed to establish sufficient individualized
risk to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d
971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (no finding of individualized risk where petitioner only
encountered a “chance” threat, continued to work and attend school after the threat,
and did not show any harm to the family that remained in Indonesia). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners have not established eligibility for asylum, they cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
09-70389 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th. Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
09-70389 3

-- 3 of 3 --