
    Trintje SIMANJUNTAK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70155.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 15, 2013.
    David M. Haghighi, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Benjamin Zeitlin, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

The BIA found that Simanjuntak failed to challenge the IJ’s determination that Simanjuntak’s asylum claim was time-barred, and Simanjuntak does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s finding.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Simanjuntak failed to establish the incidents she suffered in Indonesia constitute past persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-79 (9th Cir.2009) (Christian Indonesian who had been beaten and threatened failed to establish past persecution); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2009) (“being accosted by a threatening mob” while driving was discriminatory mistreatment but did not constitute past persecution).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Simanjuntak has not established that it is more likely than not she will be persecuted in Indonesia, because she has not demonstrated sufficient individualized risk. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 979 (applicants must present evidence that they face a unique and individualized risk of future harm); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evi-denee to prevail than would an asylum applicant”). Because the BIA analyzed Si-manjuntak’s claim under a disfavored group analysis, we reject her request to remand in light of our decision in Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.2010). Accordingly, her withholding of removal claim fails.

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