
    Ratsnee KEOVANNA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74098.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 8, 2010.
    
      Steven A. Guilin, Esquire, Law Offices of Steven A. Guilin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ratsnee Keovanna, a native and citizen of Lgos, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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, Nagoulko v. INS, 833 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Keovanna failed to establish the harms she suffered on account of her Seventh Day Adventist religion, including the interrogation by government agents and her pastor’s arrest, rose to the level of persecution. See id. at 1016-17. Substantial evidence further supports the agency’s finding that Keovanna failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future harm. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2002) (when a petitioner has not established past persecution, the agency may “rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”). Accordingly, Keovanna’s asylum claim fails.

Because Keovanna has not established eligibility for asylum, she necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

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

We reject Keovanna’s contention that the IJ failed to properly evaluate her claim and consider the documents she proffered at trial because there is no evidence rebutting the presumption that the IJ reviewed all the relevant evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000). We also reject Keovanna’s conclusory due process claim regarding the BIA’s interpretation of applicable asylum requirements.

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