EVY OLIVIA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-70527 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EVY OLIVIA, No. 12-70527 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-218-691 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 15, 2013 ** Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Evy Olivia, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence * 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). factual findings, Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. In her opening brief, Olivia does not challenge the agency s finding that she failed to establish past persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Olivia failed to show sufficient individualized risk of persecution in Indonesia to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of future persecution. See id. at 978-79. We reject Olivia s contention that the agency applied an incorrect standard in conducting the disfavored group analysis. Olivia s challenge to our opinion in Halim is unavailing. Accordingly, her asylum claim fails. Because Olivia failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to 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 12-70527

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.