
    Eddy Ade TANZIL; Susanty Mulyana; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70926.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
    David M. Haghighi, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    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: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eddy Ade Tanzil, his wife, Susanty Mul-yana, \ and their minor daughter, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the agency’s legal determinations, and for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Even if credible, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners’ experiences of harassment and religious discrimination do not rise to the level of past persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish a clear probability of persecution because, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004), applies to petitioners, they have not demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[A]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail[.]”).

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [they were] prevented from reasonably presenting [their] case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted).

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.
     