Tuju

MEMORANDUM **

Freddy Tuju, his wife Augustina Paulina Legoh, and them son, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their 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, Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Tuju failed to establish that the mugging and other incidents he experienced in Indonesia constituted past persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059 (9th Cir.2009); see also Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489 (9th Cir.1997) (a petitioner cannot establish a nexus to a protected ground by inference “unless the inference is one that is clearly to be drawn from the facts in evidence”). Substantial evidence further supports the agency’s conclusion that Tuju failed otherwise to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Lolong, 484 F.3d at 1180-81 ; see also Hakeem v.…