Legi Priyode v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEGI PRIYODE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70974
Agency No. A099-906-396
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Legi Priyode, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
* 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).
FILED
MAR 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-70974
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 Priyode experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise
to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60; see Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971,
976 (9th Cir. 2009) (evidence, including incidents of mistreatment during youth,
did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports
the agency’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Priyode
failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of harm to establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979. We reject
Priyode’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence or applied an incorrect legal
standard. Thus, Priyode’s asylum claim fails.
Because Priyode did not establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --