
    Carmen MARADIAGA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70174.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2011.
    Lesley Irizarry-Hougan, Esq., Rios Cantor, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carmen Maradiaga, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying her 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, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Maradiaga fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that her asylum application was time-barred, and she also does not challenge the denial of her CAT claim. 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). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to these claims.

Maradiaga testified that after gang members beat her mother, she spoke out by going to a local television station, and that she subsequently received death threats. The agency found Maradiaga failed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution on account of any of the statutorily protected grounds. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1997); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Maradiaga’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

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