Hannih Tjong Jap 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HANNIH TJONG JAP,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73178
Agency No. A079-642-424
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hannih Tjong Jap, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
MAY 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73178 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and
review for substantial evidence 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 Jap did not
experience harms in Indonesia amounting to past persecution. See id. at 1059-60;
see also Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1100-1101 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner
failed to establish past persecution based on harassment and forced closure of
business). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Jap failed
to establish it is more likely than not she will be persecuted if returned to
Indonesia, because, even as a member of a disfavored group, Jap has not
demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n
applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger
quantum of individualized-risk evidence”). Further, Jap has not established a
pattern or practice of persecution of people similarly situated to her. See Wakkary,
558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly, Jap’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Jap failed to establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured if returned to
Indonesia. See id. at 1067-68.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73178 3
Finally, we reject Jap’s contention that the IJ failed to consider the country
conditions materials, because she has not overcome the presumption the agency
reviewed the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th
Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --