NURMAIDA SITORUS V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-70841 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAY 23 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NURMAIDA SITORUS; VEGA BELLA INGGRID, No. 09-70841 Agency Nos. A088-558-385 A088-558-386 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. 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. Nurmaida Sitorus and Vega Bella Inggrid, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order summarily affirming their appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying their * 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). application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings, and we review de novo the agency s legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that the incidents of harassment experienced by petitioners do not rise to the level of persecution, either individually or cumulatively. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (incidents suffered by ethnic Chinese petitioner in Indonesia, considered in the aggregate, did not amount to persecution); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did not compel finding that Ukrainian Pentecostal Christian who was teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed suffered past persecution). Further, even under a disfavored group analysis, the record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners have established a well-founded fear of persecution, because they did not establish sufficient individualized risk of harm. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-80. Accordingly, petitioners asylum claim fails. Because petitioners failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, their claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). 2 09-70841 Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 09-70841

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.