Sinaga Natanugraha v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SINAGA NATANUGRAHA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72053
Agency No. A088-272-541
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Sinaga Natanugraha, 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
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-72053 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Natanugraha failed
to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground because, even
considered cumulatively, his experiences in Indonesia do not rise to the level of
persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009); Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and one
beating did not compel finding of past persecution). Further, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis,
Natanugraha failed to establish sufficient individualized risk of harm to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-79;
Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (individualized
risk must be “distinct from [that] felt by all other ethnic Chinese Christians in
Indonesia”). Accordingly, Natanugraha’s asylum claim fails.
Because Natanugraha has not established eligibility for asylum, he
necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

-- 2 of 3 --

11-72053 3
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Natanugraha failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will
be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --