
    Purnomo SUSEKO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70922.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
    Armin Skalmowski, Esquire, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    John W. Blakeley, Esquire, Emily Anne Radford, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Purnomo Suseko, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the presumption that Suseko is eligible for withholding of removal is rebutted by fundamental changed circumstances, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(l)(i)(A), because the BIA’s analysis of the State Department report was sufficiently individualized and its resolution of potentially contradictory statements in the report was rational, see Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Suseko has failed to show, as a moderate Muslim, that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

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