
    Agus Raymond PRATOMO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71671
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016
    
    FILED June 20, 2016
    Albert C. Lum, Sr., Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Agus Raymond Pratomo,-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, 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 the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the incidents Pratomo experienced in Indonesia, considered cumulatively, do not rise to the level of persecution on account of his Chinese ethnicity and Christian religion. See id. at 1059-60; Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Prato-mo has not shown sufficient individualized risk of harm to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-79. Thus, Pratomo’s asylum claim fails.

Because Pratomo failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Pratomo failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject Pratomo’s contention that the agency failed to consider record evidence. Thus, Pratomo’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     