
    Adi SUJANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73666.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
    
      Chung N. Phang, Esquire, Law Offices of Chung N. Phang, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Fatouros, Esquire, Sénior Litigation Counsel, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adi Sujana, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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, Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 924 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the cumulative harm Sujana experienced in Indonesia, including being robbed as a child, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s well-founded fear finding because, even as a member of a disfavored group, Sujana failed to demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. Cf. Sael, 386 F.3d at 927-29.

Because Sujana did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Sujana has not substantively challenged the agency’s denial of CAT relief in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are 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.
     