Eddy Ade Tanzil; Susanty Mulyana; 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).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDY ADE TANZIL; SUSANTY
MULYANA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-70926
Agency Nos. A096-364-671
A096-364-672
A096-364-673
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Eddy Ade Tanzil, his wife, Susanty Mulyana, and their minor daughter,
natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AR/Research 05-70926 2
denying their application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the agency’s legal determinations, and for
substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Even if credible, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
that petitioners’ experiences of harassment and religious discrimination do not rise
to the level of past persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60. Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to
establish a clear probability of persecution because, even if the disfavored group
analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004), applies
to petitioners, they have not demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of
persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003); see
also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[A]n applicant for withholding of removal will
need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to
prevail[.]”).
Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the proceedings were not “so
fundamentally unfair that [they were] prevented from reasonably presenting [their]
case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --