Case Name: Chee-Ket WONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-16
Citations: 537 F. App'x 768
Docket Number: No. 11-72856
Parties: Chee-Ket WONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 537
Pages: 768–769

Head Matter:
Chee-Ket WONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72856.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Filed Aug. 16, 2013.
Thomas Ogden, Counsel, Law Offices of Thomas Ogden, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Sabatino F. Leo, OIL, Jeffery R. Leist, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, 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). Thus, we deny Wong's request for oral argument.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chee-Ket Wong, a native and citizen of Malaysia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an 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, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Wong does not contend that he suffered past persecution. Rather, he contends that he faces a clear probability of future persecution based on his Christian religion and Chinese ethnicity. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Wong failed to show sufficient individualized risk to establish that it is more likely than not he would be persecuted if removed to Malaysia. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir.2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 ("[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum applicant"). Accordingly, Wong's withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.