
    Ramzi Eid Awwad ALRAWASHDEH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73619.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 24, 2012.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Keith Ian McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramzi Eid Awwad Alrawashdeh, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 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, Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Alrawashdeh fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues that are not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived). He also does not challenge the denial of his CAT claim. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum and CAT claims.

Alrawashdeh claims that because he and his girlfriend were involved in a romantic relationship before marriage, his girlfriend’s father threatened and stalked him. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Alrawashdeh failed to demonstrate he was or will be harmed by forces the government of Jordan is unwilling or unable to control. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, his 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.
     