
    Debora Shanty SUDJANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73715.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 4, 2011.
    Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Glen T. Jaeger, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, 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

Debora Shanty Sudjana, 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 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, Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harassment and discrimination Sudjana experienced in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, the incidents her family and family’s babysitter experienced in Indonesia while Sudjana was in the United States do not establish that she suffered past persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir.2009) (no past persecution where harm to others was not a part of “a pattern of persecution closely tied to” petitioner). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Sudjana failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution because, even as a member of a disfavored group, she did not establish sufficient individualized risk, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003), and Sudj ana’s similarly-situated family members have remained in Indonesia without harm, see Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, Sudjana’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Sudjana failed to challenge the agency’s denial of her CAT claim in her opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues in the opening brief not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).

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