
    Roxana Maribel NOLASCO-ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74114.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    Trish Maskew, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, 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

Roxana Maribel Nolasco-Alvarez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissal of her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA noted that petitioner was not eligible for asylum based on her failure to file a timely asylum application. The BIA denied petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and CAT based on her failure to establish persecution or the likelihood of torture in El Salvador.

Petitioner contends that the BIA erred by denying her application for asylum based on her failure to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Petitioner alleged fear of gang activity in El Salvador.

Petitioner does not challenge the BIA’s holding that she had failed to file a timely asylum application, or that an exception to the timeliness requirement applied, and therefore petitioner has waived any arguments concerning whether she merited asylum relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Petitioner raises no issues before this court concerning the BIA’s denial of her applications for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner, therefore, fails to raise any issues properly before this court.

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