
    James NAPITUPULU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73607.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 7, 2011.
    Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Annette Marie Wietecha, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet 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: PREGERSON, THOMAS, 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

James Napitupulu, 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 application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wak- kary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Napitupulu’s mistreatment by Muslims, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 965-69 (9th Cir.1998) (repeated stoning and vandalism of petitioner’s home did not compel finding of past persecution).

The BIA found that, even assuming Napitupulu had established past persecution on account of his Christian religion, his presumption of a clear probability of persecution was rebutted because he reasonably could relocate within ' Indonesia. In reaching this conclusion, the BIA did not apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Intervening case law holds the disfavored group analysis applies to Christians in Indonesia. See Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir.2010). Because the agency did not have the benefit of our decisions in Waklcary and Tampubolon, we remand for the BIA to assess Napitupulu’s withholding of removal claim under the disfavored group analysis in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

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