Kalim v. Mukasey
This text of 305 F. App'x 421 (Kalim v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Hendra Kalim, and his wife and three children, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners did not establish they suffered past persecution based on general incidents of discrimination and a single incident of robbery that occurred in 1974. See id. (acts of random violence during periods of civil strife do not establish persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to establish a fear of future persecution because, even as members of a disfavored group, petitioners did not demonstrate the requisite level of individualized risk in order to prove a well-founded fear of future persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
305 F. App'x 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalim-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.