Christina Natalia Kurniawan v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTINA NATALIA KURNIAWAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74105
Agency No. A088-486-473
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Christina Natalia Kurniawan, 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 asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-74105
have 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 conclusion that the incidents of
harm Kurniawan experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not
rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60; Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d
971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (applicant who was stripped, spat on, threatened, and
denied medical attention as a child, wrongfully detained by police, and beaten by a
mob did not establish past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Kurniawan
failed to demonstrate a sufficient individualized risk of harm to establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-79. We reject
Kurniawan’s contention that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard in
analyzing her individual risk of harm. See id. Thus, we deny the petition as to
Kurniawan’s asylum claim.
Because Kurniawan did not establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
failed to establish eligibility 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 Kurniawan’s
CAT claim because she failed to show that it is more likely than not that she would

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-74105
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). The
record does not support Kuniawan’s contentions that the agency failed to
adequately review the evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91
(9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we deny the petition as to Kurniawan’s CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --