
    Warouw Soleiman Raymon GANDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-75090.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 20, 2010.
    Sharon A. Healey, Esquire, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, CA, for Petitioner.
    Barry J. Pettinato, Esquire, Julia Tyler, Esquire, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Warouw Soleiman Raymon Ganda, 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 withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ganda did not suffer past persecution because the name calling at school and the robbery, considered individually or cumulatively, did not constitute persecution, see Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2009) (“persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive”) (internal quotation and citation omitted), and Ganda did not establish that his father’s poisoning was part of a “pattern of persecution closely tied to” Ganda, see id. at 1060. In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even as a member of a disfavored group, he failed to demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail”). Accordingly, Ganda’s withholding of removal 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.
     