
    Evy OLIVIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70527.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2013.
    Monika Sud-Devaraj, Law Offices of Monika Sud-Devaraj and Marshall Whitehead, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Tiffany L. Walters, Trial, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, 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

Evy Olivia, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 factual findings, Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

In her opening brief, Olivia does not challenge the agency’s finding that she failed to establish past persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Olivia failed to show sufficient individualized risk of persecution in Indonesia to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 978-79. We reject Olivia’s contention that the agency applied an incorrect standard in conducting the disfavored group analysis. Olivia’s challenge to our opinion in Halim is unavailing. Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.

Because Olivia failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

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