Harto Patih Pangoloi Siahaan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HARTO PATIH PANGOLOI SIAHAAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73672
Agency No. A099-578-942
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Harto Patih Pangoloi Siahaan, a 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JUL 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-73672
(“CAT”). We have 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. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Even if Siahaan’s asylum application was timely-filed, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s finding that Siahaan’s experiences do not rise to the level of
persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (incidents
of harassment did not constitute persecution). Further, we reject Siahaan’s request
for remand because, even under a disfavored group analysis, the record does not
compel the conclusion that Siahaan established sufficient individualized risk of
harm to show a well-founded fear of persecution. See id. at 977-80; see also
Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, his asylum claim
fails.
Because Siahaan did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his
claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Siahaan failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --