Felincia Phang; Hendrick Liauw 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FELINCIA PHANG; HENDRICK
LIAUW,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70988
Agency Nos. A088-102-228
A088-102-229
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Felincia Phang and Hendrick Liauw, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
OCT 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 12-70988
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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Phang failed to
establish she suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground. See
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act
“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum
applicant’s persecution”); see also Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th
Cir. 2009) (incidents of mistreatment, including being stripped naked in front of
classmates, beaten by rioters, and false arrest and detention, did not compel finding
of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that,
even under a disfavored group analysis, Phang failed to demonstrate sufficient
individualized risk of harm to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in
Indonesia. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-979; cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922,
927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). We reject Phang’s contention that the BIA applied the
disfavored group analysis incorrectly. Accordingly, Phang’s asylum claim fails.
Because Phang failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --