
    Bobby GIROTH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70006.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 29, 2009.
    
      Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Melissa Lynn Neiman-Kelting, Trial, OIL, Ronald B. Seely, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bobby Giroth, 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 and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we grant in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Giroth failed to establish he suffered past persecution in Indonesia. See id. at 1059-60. In analyzing Giroth’s withholding of removal claim, the agency declined to apply the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Because intervening case law holds the disfavored group analysis applies, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1062-65, we remand to the agency for consideration of whether Giroth is entitled to withholding of removal. See id. at 1067; INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Giroth has not established it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

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