Teddy Lingga; Betty Limiaty Ali v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TEDDY LINGGA; BETTY LIMIATY
ALI,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71670
Agency Nos. A098-267-273
A088-196-637
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Betty Limiaty Ali, 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 decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
JUN 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we
review de novo due process claims, Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir.
2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even considering
her son’s experiences, Ali did not suffer harm rising to the level of past
persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (concluding that petitioner’s
beating, robbery, and confrontation with a threatening mob did not rise to the level
of persecution); Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2004) (“mere
economic disadvantage alone does not rise to the level of persecution”).
Substantial evidence also supports the finding that, even under a disfavored group
analysis, Ali has not established sufficient individualized risk of harm to support a
well-founded fear of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir.
2009). We reject Ali’s contention that the agency misapplied the disfavored group
analysis. Thus, Ali’s asylum claim fails.
Because Ali failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows
that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
12-71670 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ali
failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1067-68.
We reject Ali’s due process claims. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to establish a due process
violation).
Ali’s motion to submit this case to a merits panel is denied as moot.
Finally, according to Ali’s opening brief, Teddy Lingga has returned to
Indonesia and has abandoned his claim. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.8. Pursuant to Ali’s
request, we dismiss the petition for review as to Teddy Lingga.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-71670 3

-- 3 of 3 --