Liana Lie v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Liana Lie v. Loretta E. Lynch

632 F. App'x 385

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2016

Docket13-73526

StatusUnpublished

This text of 632 F. App'x 385 (Liana Lie v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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.

Bluebook

Liana Lie v. Loretta E. Lynch, 632 F. App'x 385 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Winlesky Burham, native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and deny the petition for review.

We deny respondent’s request for summary disposition. See Quan v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir.2005).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Burham failed to establish his experiences in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, rose to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir.2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d 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). We reject Burham’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Burham failed to show sufficient individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979. We reject Burham’s contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard or ignored evidence. Thus, his asylum claim fails.

Because Burham did not establish eligibility for asylum, he did not meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of Burham’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th. Cir.2008).

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

MEMORANDUM **

Winlesky Burham, native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and deny the petition for review.

We deny respondent’s request for summary disposition. See Quan v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir.2005).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Burham failed to establish his experiences in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, rose to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir.2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d 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). We reject Burham’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Burham failed to show sufficient individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979. We reject Burham’s contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard or ignored evidence. Thus, his asylum claim fails.

Because Burham did not establish eligibility for asylum, he did not meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of Burham’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th. Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 F. App'x 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liana-lie-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack