
    Marek Yance Inarai LUNTUNGAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-73983.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 12, 2005.
    
    Decided May 19, 2005.
    Eugene C. Wong, Esq., Robert G. Ryan, Esq., Law Offices of Eugene C. Wong, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., David E. Dauenheimer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, HAWKINS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

There is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that Luntungan did not establish that he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution. The harassment and discrimination that Luntungan suffered while in high school, by Muslim students, did not rise to the level of persecution. The same is true of the other incidents.

Moreover, Luntungan cannot demonstrate that he faces “a particularized threat of persecution.” Luntungan’s grandmother voluntarily returned to Manado, Indonesia, where Luntungan had lived with her. She remains there without serious incident even though she is an active member of a Christian church. Christian universities are available, so Luntungan does not face, if he seeks a university education, the mistreatment he received from Muslim students at his public high school.

Because Luntungan has not met the lower burden for asylum, he cannot meet the higher burden for withholding of removal. Luntungan also has not shown evidence that would entitle him to relief under the Convention Against Torture.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
     
      
      . See Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 851-52 (9th Cir.1994).
     
      
      . See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
     
      
      . See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721-22 (9th Cir.2004) (per curium).
     