Jackwynsk J. Posumah; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JACKWYNSK J. POSUMAH; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70093
Agency Nos. A096-055-179
A096-055-180
A096-055-181
A096-055-182
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jackwynsk J. Posumah and his family, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying Posumah’s application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70093 2
Torture (“CAT”), along with his family’s derivative asylum claims. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review findings of fact for substantial
evidence and questions of law de novo.” Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118,
1121 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Posumah neither
suffered past persecution, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.
2003) (“The unfulfilled threats . . . constitute harassment rather than persecution.”),
nor has a well-founded fear of future persecution, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i)
(“In cases in which the applicant has not established past persecution, the applicant
shall bear the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her
to relocate . . . .”). Accordingly, we deny the petitioners’ asylum claims.
Because Posumah failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
cannot demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Posumah failed to
establish that he would more likely than not be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of government officials if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009). We therefore deny the petition as to
his CAT claim.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70093 3
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --