MEMORANDUM **

Yusak Rompas, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the *327 Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We-have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the harms Rompas experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Rompas failed to provide sufficient evidence of individualized harm to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“An applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum applicant....”). Thus, Rompas’ -withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.