
    Margaretha Yulfrien MATULANDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70151.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 16, 2009.
    Kathleen S. Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Margaretha Yulfrien Matulandi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s 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, Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n. 4 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

In her opening brief, Matulandi fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that her asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Matulandi failed to establish past persecution in Indonesia. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1182. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that even as a member of a disfavored group, Matulandi failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution. See id. at 1185. Further, the evidence does not compel the finding that Matulandi is a member of a group facing a pattern or practice of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir.2009). Accordingly, her withholding of removal claim fails.

Matulandi fails to raise any substantive arguments with respect to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60.

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