Juanita Kamagi 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUANITA KAMAGI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72425
Agency No. A096-362-372
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.
Juanita Kamagi, 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
FILED
MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-72425 2
de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Kamagi contends she suffered past persecution on the basis of an attack in
1997 and her husband’s loss of employment in 2000, and she contends she will be
persecuted in the future as an ethnic Chinese Christian. We reject Kamagi’s
request to remand her case because the BIA reasonably concluded that the IJ made
a finding of no past persecution and also made its own determination that the 1997
attack did not constitute past persecution. The record does not compel the
conclusion that the incidents Kamagi cites, even cumulatively, rise to the level of
persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (two beatings and robberies and being accosted by
hostile mob did not compel finding of past persecution); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d
1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (termination of petitioner’s employment because of her
religious beliefs was “not the type of economic deprivation that rises to the level of
persecution”). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even
as a member of a disfavored group, Kamagi failed to establish the requisite
individualized risk of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th
Cir. 2009) (petitioner did not show individualized risk where he “failed to offer
any evidence that distinguishes his exposure from those of all other ethnic Chinese

-- 2 of 3 --

09-72425 3
Indonesians”); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, Kamagi’s asylum claim fails.
Because Kamagi failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, her
claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --