
    Hendra KO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70568.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 26, 2016.
    
    Filed April 29, 2016.
    Thomas Prince, Law Offices of Thomas Prince, Pomona, CA, pro se.
    Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire,' Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    .Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, 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

Hendra Ko, 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 relief 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), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if credible, Ko failed to establish the harms he experienced in Indonesia, considered cumulatively, rose to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60; Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir.2009) (record did not compel finding past persecution where petitioner was harassed as a youth, refused medical care, arrested, and beaten by a mob of rioters). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Ko failed to show sufficient individualized risk of harm to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979. Thus, Ko’s asylum claim fails.

Because Ko did not establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily does not meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ko’s CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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