Eka Haryaty Tantalis; Rony Agus 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EKA HARYATY TANTALIS; RONY
AGUS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71358
Agency Nos. A095-599-566
A095-599-565
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Eka Haryaty Tantalis and her husband, Rony Agus, 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
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-71358 2
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the agency’s
decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners did
not suffer past persecution because the rape Tantalis suffered was not on account
of a protected ground, see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2001), Agus
failed to establish that the government was unwilling or unable to control his
persecutors with respect to the 1996 motorcycle incident, see Castro-Perez v.
Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 2005), and the remaining incidents did
not rise to the level of persecution, see Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th
Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners did not show sufficient individualized risk to demonstrate a
well-founded fear of future persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F .3d 922,
927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, their asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that they cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --