Setlight

Setlight v. Ashcroft

Good Law
120 F. App'x 173
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 18, 2005No. 03-72558; Agency Nos. A79-194-180, A79-194-199California406 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jojo Franco Stefano Setlight and Vonny Deanne Silvana, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which summarily affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) *174 order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 .

Where, as here, the BIA affirms without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Petitioners contend that the IJ erred by finding that they did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. We disagree. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish sufficient individualized harm or risk of future harm to be eligible for asylum based on past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1998) (recognizing that “[m]ere generalized…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.