Margaretha Yulfrien Matulandi v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARGARETHA YULFRIEN
MATULANDI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70151
Agency No. A096-342-479
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
DEC 16 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JT/Research 07-70151 2
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.

-- 2 of 3 --

JT/Research 07-70151 3
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.

-- 3 of 3 --