Winlesky Burham v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WINLESKY BURHAM,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73945
Agency No. A088-487-396
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.
Winlesky Burham, 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, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
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 --

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. 2007),
and deny the petition for review.
We deny respondent’s request for summary disposition. See Quan v.
Gonzales, 428 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Burham failed to
establish his experiences in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, rose to the
level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009);
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (record did not compel finding of past persecution
where petitioner was robbed and beaten as a youth and accosted by a mob). We
reject Burham’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence. Substantial evidence
also supports the BIA’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis,
Burham failed to show sufficient individualized risk to establish a well-founded
fear of persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979. We reject Burham’s contentions
that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard or ignored evidence. Thus, his
asylum claim fails.
Because Burham did not establish eligibility for asylum, he did not meet the
more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
13-73945 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of Burham’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would 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 DENIED.
13-73945 3

-- 3 of 3 --