
    Jerry Roy WALEAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71232.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
    
      Houman Varzandeh, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Joanne E. Johnson, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Mark C. Walters, U.S. Department of Justice, WASHINGTON, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jerry Roy Walean, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n. 4 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Walean has shown changed circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).

The record does not compel the conclusion that there is a clear probability Walean would be persecuted on account of his westernization or United States citizen children if he returned to Indonesia. See Ramadan, 479 F.3d at 658. Even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004) applies to Walean, a Seventh Day Adventist Christian, he has not demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1184-85; see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir.2009). (“an applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail.]”). Finally, the record also does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62 (9th Cir.2009).

Accordingly, Walean’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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