Hendra Ko v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENDRA KO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70568
Agency No. A088-322-623
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Hendra Ko, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 jurisdiction under
* 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).
FILED
APR 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-70568
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 agency’s determination that, even if
credible, Ko failed to establish the harms he experienced in Indonesia, considered
cumulatively, rose to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60; Halim v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not compel finding past
persecution where petitioner was harassed as a youth, refused medical care,
arrested, and beaten by a mob of rioters). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Ko failed to show
sufficient individualized risk of harm to establish a well-founded fear of
persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979. Thus, Ko’s asylum claim fails.
Because Ko did not establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily does not
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ko’s CAT
claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-70568
tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th
Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --