
    Thiela Suhendra SUGIARTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74993.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 13, 2010.
    Farah Loftus, Esquire, Law Offices of Farah Loftus, Century City, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, Susan Houser, Justin Robert Markel, Trial, Oil, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC — District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Thiela Suhendra Sugiarto, 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 decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the harassment Sugiarto suffered throughout her life and the incidents with airport workers in 1997 in Indonesia do not rise to the level of past persecution. See id. at 1016-18. In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of a well-founded fear of persecution, because even as a member of a disfavored group, Sugiarto failed to demonstrate an individualized risk of persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004).

We lack jurisdiction to review Sugiarto’s contentions regarding withholding of removal and CAT relief, because she failed to raise them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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