
    Richoff DODY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70703.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2010.
    Kathleen S. Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jaesa Woods McLin, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Oxford, MS, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Mary Jane Candaux, Esquire, 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: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Riehoff Dody, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his 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, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition.

The IJ denied Dody’s asylum application claim as time-barred. Dody does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Dody failed to establish past persecution. See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir.1991) (requiring that any pattern of persecution against friends or family members be “closely tied to the petitioner”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Dody failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution, because even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004), applies to Christian Indonesians, Dody did not demonstrate the requisite individualized risk, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003), and the record does not compel the conclusion that Dody established a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia, see Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061-62. Accordingly, Dody’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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

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