
    Indra SUDARTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73334.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 9, 2011.
    Houman Varzandeh, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Stephen Elliott, Esquire, Jesse David Lorenz, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes dais case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Indra Sudarto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Sudarto does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his asylum application is time-barred or its denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

Sudai’to, born and raised a Muslim, contends he suffered mistreatment as a schoolchild, was threatened for refusing to engage in anti-Christian acts, and fears future harm because he intends to convert to Christianity. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, assuming the truth of Sudarto’s testimony, he failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir.2003) (discrimination and harassment due to petitioner’s religious beliefs did not compel finding of past persecution; petitioner’s fear was too speculative to be objectively reasonable); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (unfulfilled threats constituted harassment rather than persecution). Accordingly, Sudarto’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.
     