
    Ronny Kurniawan JOSO; Liliawati Antaredjo, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74770.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2009.
    
    Filed April 27, 2009.
    Kathleen Siok-Sien Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen S. Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Matt Crapo, John R. Cunningham, Esquire, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer J. Kenney, Esquire, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable, for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ronny Kurniawan Joso and his wife, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 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, Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of Joso’s asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, Joso’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because the inconsistency between Joso’s testimony and the medical report concerning the injuries he suffered in May of 1998 and the inconsistency between Joso’s testimony and the police report concerning the date of the attack on his shop go to the heart of his claim. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim). Accordingly, Joso’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Joso does not raise any substantive arguments in his opening brief regarding the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

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