Sinaga Natanugraha v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Andres Tamberg and Murel Murakas, natives of the former Soviet Union and citizens of Estonia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Tamberg’s experiences in Estonia, including name-calling, threatening phone calls, and fistfights did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (harassment, unfulfilled threats, and one beating did not compel finding of past persecution). We reject Tamberg’s contention that the agency failed to consider the cumulative effect of the harms he suffered. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Tamberg failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (possibility of…