
    Beny TAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70057.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
    
    Filed Nov. 4, 2008.
    Karen L. Barr, Esq., Law Offices of Karen L. Barr, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Thomas Fatouros, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Beny Tan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the harm Tan suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution. See id. at 1016-18. Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Tan failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution because, although he is a member of a disfavored group, he did not demonstrate an individualized risk of persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, the record does not compel the conclusion that the strife in Indonesia amounts to a pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christian Indonesians. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

Because Tan failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Tan is not entitled to CAT relief because he failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
     