
    Myske Tinneke PODUNG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73371.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Jan. 24, 2014.
    Thomas Prince, Law Offices of Thomas Prince, Pomona, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Jennifer A. Singer, John D. Williams, Esquire, DOJ-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: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Myske Tinneke Podung, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Podung does not challenge the agency’s finding that the incidents and emotional harm she experienced in Indonesia, even considered cumulatively, do not rise to the level of persecution. Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even under a disfavored group analysis, Podung has not shown sufficient individualized risk to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977-79 (9th Cir. 2009); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Po-dung’s asylum claim fails.

Because Podung failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, Podung does not raise any arguments in her opening brief regarding the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

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