
    Brenda Indira USMANY; et al., Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74376
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    FILED September 21, 2016
    Albert C. Lum, Sr., Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    Brandon H. Usmany, Pro Se.
    Brenda Indira Usmany, Pro Se.
    Daniel Julianus Usmany, Pro Se.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jennifer A. Singer, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brenda Indira Usmany and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 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), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the incidents of mistreatment Usmany suffered in Indonesia did not cumulatively rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (two incidents of beatings and robbery and being accosted by a mob did not compel a finding of past persecution); Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (discrimination and harassment as a youth and being beaten by rioters did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Usmany failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of harm to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Indonesia. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979. We reject petitioners’ contention that the agency erred in its analysis. Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Having failed to establish eligibility for asylum, Usmany’s withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Usmany failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068. We reject petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to consider record evidence. Thus, Usmany’s GAT 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.
     