
    Vanik HOUHANNESYAN, a.k.a. Vardan Mnatsakanyan, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70603.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 3, 2011.
    
      Reynold E. Finnegan, Esquire, Finnegan & Diba A Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Vanik Houhannesyan, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Shahrzad Baghai, Richard Zanfardino, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District 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: RYMER, THOMAS, 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vanik Houhannesyan, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Armenia, 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 factual findings, Zehatye v. Gon zales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Houhannesyan fails to raise any substantive challenge to either the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum claim was time-barred, or to the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the beating Houhannesyan suffered by unidentified assailants did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (isolated incident of physical violence did not compel a finding of past persecution). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency finding that Houhannesyan failed to establish his fear of future harm was objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, Houhannesyan’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.
     