Case Name: Margaretha Yulfrien MATULANDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-16
Citations: 358 F. App'x 979
Docket Number: No. 07-70151
Parties: Margaretha Yulfrien MATULANDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 979–980

Head Matter:
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/Of fice 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).

Opinion:
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.