
    Wira Reagan KOJONGIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72459.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2010.
    Wira Reagan Kojongian, Colton, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Paul Fiorino, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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

Wira Reagan Kojongian, 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 and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Kojongian filed his asylum application within a reasonable period of time given any changed or extraordinary circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, Kojongian’s asylum claim fails.

Kojongian failed to exhaust any contention that he suffered past persecution. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Kojongian failed to establish a clear probability of persecution in Indonesia because he presented no evidence that he was personally targeted, Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), and his parents, who are Christian pastors, both remain in Indonesia without harm, see Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th Cir.2001). Further, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Kojongian failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution against Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061-62. Accordingly, Kojongian’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003).

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