
    Daniel KURNIAWAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74798.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
    
      David M. Haghighi, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Janette L. Allen, Esquire, 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: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes tins case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Kurniawan, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Kurniawan’s experiences of mistreatment, including incidents of robbery and assault, rose to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (“discriminatory mistreatment” of Indonesian Chinese Christian, including beatings and robberies and being accosted by a hostile mob, did not compel a finding of past persecution); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir.2003) (finding it “significant” in circumstances of case that petitioner “never suffered any significant physical violence” and concluding record did not compel a finding of past persecution). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Kurniawan failed to establish an individualized risk of persecution, even under disfavored-group analysis. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir.2009) (petitioner failed to show he was individually targeted or likely to be individually targeted where he “failed to offer any evidence that distinguishes his exposure from those of all other ethnic Chinese Indonesians”); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Kurniawan’s asylum claim fails.

Because Kurniawan failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. 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.
     