Vivin Tjhia v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIVIN TJHIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72551
Agency No. A089-879-345
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Vivin Tjhia, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
NOV 29 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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 Tjhia did not suffer
harm rising to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059 (concluding petitioner
failed to establish past persecution where he was beaten, robbed of pocket money,
and accosted by a threatening mob). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Tjhia failed to
establish it is more likely than not she would be persecuted as a Chinese Christian
Indonesian because she did not present sufficient evidence of an individualized
risk. See id. at 1066 (a petitioner seeking withholding of removal will “need to
adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence” than an
applicant for asylum). Accordingly, Tjhia’s withholding of removal claim fails. In
light of our conclusion, we decline Tjhia’s request to remand for the agency to
consider Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Tjhia failed to establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government of Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524
F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-72551 2

-- 2 of 2 --