Harryanto Moe v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Harryanto Tjitra Moe (Moe) seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to dismiss his appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ), which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

The BIA’s conclusion that Moe did not establish asylum eligibility is supported by substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 (a)(42)(A) (defining “refugee”), 1158(b)(1) (requiring an asylum applicant to qualify as a “refugee”). We cannot say that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude that Moe’s experiences amount to past persecution. See, e.g., Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Moe did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because he failed to show that he has a sufficient individualized risk of being singled out for persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (denying a petition for review where the applicant “provided nothing that suggests that her fears are distinct from those felt by all other ethnic Chinese ... in…