along with that of his sons and wife, frequently emphasized the severity, proximity and frequency of the violence in Indonesia. Even minor inconsistencies going to the heart of an asylum claim may, considered collectively, deprive a claim of the “requisite ring of truth.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s adverse credibility finding. Substantial evidence supported the denial of the claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention. Because of the adverse credibility finding, Mailoa presented no credible evidence of an individualized risk of future persecution, nor sufficient evidence of past persecution. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED
holding that to establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution an applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution holding that a showing of past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution holding that some evidence of individualized risk is necessary to establish the sufficient likelihood of future persecution holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals