Kwet Liong v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KWET LIONG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73033
Agency No. A088-291-902
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Kwet Liong, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
OCT 21 2015
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 --

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.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Liong failed to
establish his experiences in Indonesia cumulatively rose to the level of persecution.
See id. at 1059-60 (being beaten, robbed of sandals and pocket money, and
accosted by a mob did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial
evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that even under a disfavored group
analysis, Liong did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of persecution to
establish eligibility for asylum. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir.
2009). Thus, Liong’s asylum claim fails.
Because Liong failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Liong does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-73033 2

-- 2 of 2 --