
    Herachoom KHACHIKIAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72156.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
    
      Herachoom Khachikian, Burbank, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Herachoom Khachikian, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an 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 findings of fact, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harm Khachi-kian suffered in Iran, including her detention and interrogation, did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Khachikian’s well-founded fear is undermined because she willingly returned to Iran from Armenia multiple times between 1998 and 2001. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.

Because Khachikian failed to establish eligibility for asylum she necessarily failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Khachikian has failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

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