Case Name: Jeanie Norma RANTUNG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-09
Citations: 292 F. App'x 638
Docket Number: No. 05-72048
Parties: Jeanie Norma RANTUNG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 292
Pages: 638–640

Head Matter:
Jeanie Norma RANTUNG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72048.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
Filed Sept. 9, 2008.
Kathleen S. Koh, Law Office of Kathleen Koh, Whittier, CA, Gihan L. Thomas, Law Offices of Gihan L. Thomas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey R. Meyer, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jeanie Norma Rantung, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her 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, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Rantung has shown changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of her asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that Rantung did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal because the harassment Rantung suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoidko, 333 F.3d at 1016-18. Assuming, without deciding, that the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004) applies in the context of withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Rantung failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not she will be persecuted on account of a protected ground if she returned to Indonesia. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003).
In her opening brief, Rantung failed to raise, and therefore has waived, any challenge to the agency's determination that she is ineligible for CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).
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.