JUVENTUS TAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-74356 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUVENTUS JULIUS TAN, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-74356 Agency No. A095-023-661 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 15, 2016** Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Juventus Julius Tan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the * 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). agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the incidents Tan experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (record did not compel finding of past persecution where petitioner was robbed and beaten as a youth, and accosted by a mob); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did not compel finding of past persecution where petitioner suffered discrimination and harassment, but no significant physical violence). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Tan failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of harm as a Chinese Christian to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Indonesia. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject Tan’s contentions that the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in analyzing his claim. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Tan’s asylum claim fails. Because Tan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). 2 13-74356 Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Tan’s CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 13-74356
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.
