
    Agus Budi SANTOSO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73839.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
    Dennis Lam, Esquire, Law Offices of Dennis Lam, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey Lawrence Menkin, Trial, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Agus Budi Santoso, 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 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Santoso does not contend he suffered past persecution, but contends he faces future persecution based on his family’s disappointment that he is no longer a practicing Muslim and general harm by Muslims. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Santoso does not face a clear probability of future persecution. See Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2008); Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (a “general, undifferentiated claim” is not a basis for relief).

In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Santoso failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

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