
    Sunday Saut Lomo PARULIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73016.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
    
      Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. 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

Sunday Saut Lomo Parulian, 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 and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Parulian failed to establish past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Parulian failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution because he has not provided sufficient evidence that he will be specifically targeted for persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir .2003).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Parulian failed to show it was more likely than not that he would be tortured in Indonesia. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

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