Ross Fatmahwaty Tan; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROSS FATMAHWATY TAN; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71077
Agency Nos. A099-464-015
A099-464-016
A099-464-017
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Ross Fatmahwaty Tan and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
MAR 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-71077
the agency’s factual findings, and we review de novo the agency’s legal
determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the incidents of
harassment and discrimination experienced by petitioners do not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (record
did not compel finding that Ukrainian Pentecostal Christian who was “teased,
bothered, discriminated against and harassed” suffered from past persecution);
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2003) (lifetime of harassment,
threats, and mistreatment including one beating did not compel finding of past
persecution). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even
under a disfavored group analysis, petitioners have not shown sufficient
individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-79 (9th Cir. 2009) (ethnic Chinese Indonesian
failed to establish he was individually targeted or likely to be individually
targeted); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly,
petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --