
    David M. DAVID, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73726.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2014.
    Robert George Ryan, Eugene Chi Ching Wong, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Eugene C. Wong, Inc, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David M. David, 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 ■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). We deny the petition for review.

David claims he will more likely than not face future persecution in Indonesia. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis, David failed to show sufficient individualized risk to establish it is more likely than not he would be persecuted if removed to Indonesia. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 978-79 (9th Cir.2009); see also 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”). We reject David’s contention that the agency ignored his arguments related to imputed political opinion. The record does not compel the conclusion that Chinese Christians face a pattern and practice of persecution in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061. Accordingly, David’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.
     