SUSI LO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73204 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 29 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUSI LO, No. 11-73204 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-320-499 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Susi Lo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals 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 ). We have jurisdiction under 8 * 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). U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Even if Lo s testimony was credible, substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Lo failed to establish she suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (persecution does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive. ) (internal quotations omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Lo has not shown sufficient individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-79 (9th Cir. 2009); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Lo s asylum claim fails. Because Lo 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, 453 F.3d at 1190. Finally, Lo did not challenge the agency s denial of her CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-73204

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.