
    Ferdinandus Hudi SANTOSA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72593.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 21, 2011.
    R. Wayne McMillan, Law Office of R. Wayne McMillan, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    
      Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ferdinandus Hudi Santosa and his family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to establish past persecution because the harassment and discrimination petitioners experienced as a result of their Christian religion did not rise to the level of persecution, see id. at 1059-60, and Indonesian authorities were able to control the protesters at petitioners’ 1999 concert, see Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005). In addition, we reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred because it did not expressly state it considered the harm of their past experiences in Indonesia cumulatively. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (“[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.”) (internal quotes omitted).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because they did not show sufficient individualized risk, of. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004), and they failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution by forces the government was unable or unwilling to control, see Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     