
    Yuda PUTRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75661.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 26, 2009.
    Anthony Wilaras, Law Offices of Anthony Wilaras, Artesia, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yuda Putra, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the robbery Putra suffered as a teenager and the other incidents he described do not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1016-18. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Putra failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because, even if Putra is a member of a disfavored group of Chinese Buddhist Indonesians, he failed to demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Further, Putra’s history of return trips to Indonesia militates against a finding that he has a well-founded fear of persecution. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, his asylum 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.
     