Emil Merliana Tjauw; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EMIL MERLIANA TJAUW; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72791
Agency Nos. A079-281-957
A079-281-958
A079-281-959
A079-281-960
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Emil Merliana Tjauw and her 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 their application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-72791 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 review de novo due process claims based on
ineffective assistance of counsel, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92
(9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners’
experiences of harassment and discrimination, and physical attacks upon the oldest
son on his way to and from school, did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60. In addition, petitioners failed to demonstrate a
well-founded fear of future persecution because, although they are members of a
disfavored group, they did not demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of
persecution. Cf. Sael v. Gonzales, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows
that they did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
We do not address petitioners’ CAT claim because they did not specifically
and distinctly challenge it in their opening brief. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales,
409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (failure to raise a claim results in waiver).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72791 3
Finally, we agree with the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners failed to
establish former counsel’s performance resulted in prejudice, and thus their claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94 (to
demonstrate prejudice, alien must establish that counsel’s performance may have
affected outcome of the proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --