F.n.u. Santi 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
F.N.U. SANTI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73599
Agency No. A088-290-808
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.
Santi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-73599 2
evidence the agency’s factual findings, and 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 BIA’s finding that Santi’s past experiences
even considered cumulatively did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at
1059 (“Persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of
treatment our society regards as offensive.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (harassment,
denial of medical care, arrest and detention, and mob beating did not constitute
past persecution). In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that Santi failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
persecution because, even under a disfavored group analysis, she failed to establish
sufficient individualized risk of harm to qualify for relief. See Halim, 590 F.3d at
979-80. The record does not support Santi’s contentions that the IJ failed to
conduct a disfavored group analysis, or that the IJ discounted her testimony by
relying on the country report. We reject Santi’s contention that the IJ unjustifiably
relied on the country reports. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096
(9th Cir. 2002) (the IJ is “entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the record,
including a State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner has

-- 2 of 3 --

11-73599 3
demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”). Consequently,
her asylum claim fails.
Because Santi failed to demonstrate her eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Halim, 590 F.3d at 980 n.7.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --