Dornatus Tanzil v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DORNATUS TANZIL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73753
Agency No. A099-737-825
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Dornatus Tanzil, 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 (“CAT”). We have
FILED
APR 11 2014
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 3 --

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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the incidents
Tanzil experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the
level of past persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2009);
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (record did not compel finding of past persecution
where petitioner was robbed and beaten as a youth, and accosted by a mob).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that, even under a
disfavored group analysis, Tanzil failed to show sufficient individualized risk of
harm to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Indonesia. See
Halim, 590 F.3d at 979. We reject Tanzil’s contentions that the BIA failed to
consider all the evidence, applied the incorrect legal standard, or otherwise
improperly analyzed his claim. Accordingly, Tanzil’s asylum claim fails.
Because Tanzil failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Tanzil’s
CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would
12-73753 2

-- 2 of 3 --

be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in
Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject
Tanzil’s contention that the BIA failed to fully or properly consider the evidence,
and his contention that the BIA misapplied the legal standard for CAT.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73753 3

-- 3 of 3 --