
    SUMIK TAN, a.k.a. Sumik, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71194.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2013.
    Kathleen Siok-Sien Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen S. Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, Oil, 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: FISHER, GOULD, 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

Sumik Tan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, 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 Tan’s experiences, even considered cumulatively,' do not rise to the level of past persecution. See id. at 1059; Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (harassment and one beating unconnected with any particular threat did not compel finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Tan failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of harm to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979-80 (9th Cir.2009). Consequently, her asylum claim fails.

Because Tan failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id. at 980 n. 7.

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.
     