
    KIM LIAN BONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73137.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 14, 2011.
    
      Houman Varzandeh, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Joan H. Hogan, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los An-geles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kim Lian Bong, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Bong’s experiences in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2009) (being beaten by youths, robbed of sandals and pocket money, and accosted by a threatening mob did not compel a past persecution finding). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Bong, a Chinese Christian, failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution even under the “disfavored group” analysis. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Bong’s asylum claim.

Because Bong failed to show eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to show eligibility for withholding of removal, which is governed by a more stringent standard of proof. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

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