
    Ledyana Olivia CAROLIEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72104.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 12, 2011.
    
      Howard Robert Davis, Law Offices of Howard R. Davis, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Leah V. Durant, Esquire, Carl Henry McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ledyana Olivia Carolien, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Carolien did not suffer past persecution because she was never personally confronted, threatened, or attacked. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60; Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). We do not consider Carolien’s contention that the IJ should have applied a lower burden to her past persecution claim, given that she was a child at the time of the primary incidents, because she failed to exhaust that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Even as a member of two disfavored groups, Chinese and Christian, the record does not compel the conclusion that Carolien demonstrated a sufficiently individualized threat of persecution to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Carolien’s asylum claim fails.

Because Carolien failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

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