
    GIDEON REZA TANJUNG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72957.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
    Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
    Puneet Cheema, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gideon Reza Tanjung, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his claim for withholding of removal. 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), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that the harms suffered by Tan-jung, even cumulatively, did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir.2009). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Tanjung failed to establish sufficient individualized risk of persecution to show eligibility for relief. See id. at 977-79; 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 than would an asylum applicant”). In addition, the evidence does not establish a pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly, Tanjung’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.
     