
    SOK HENG MEAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74471.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 28, 2012.
    Steve Paek, Law Office of Steve Paek, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ada Elsie Bosque, Trial, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sok Heng Meas, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

The record supports the agency’s denial of Meas’s asylum application as untimely based on the two-year delay between when Meas learned her husband was arrested and when she filed her application. See Taslimi v. Holder, 590 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2010) (the court has jurisdiction to consider whether an application for asylum was filed within a reasonable time); Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, Meas’s asylum claim fails.

Meas does not contend that she suffered past persecution. The record does not compel the conclusion that Meas has a clear probability of future persecution because there is no evidence that spouses of members of the Cambodian Freedom Fighters (“CFF”) organization are targeted for persecution or that anyone is targeting Meas because of her own involvement with CFF. See Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, Meas’s withholding of removal claim also fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Meas failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if returned to Cambodia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

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