
    Mercedes HERNANDEZ-CARDONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72001.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 30, 2014.
    Mercedes Hernandez-Cardona, Los An-geles, CA, pro se.
    Edward C. Durant, Oil, 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: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mercedes Hernandez-Cardona, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Hernandez-Cardona failed to establish eligibility for asylum, where she was not harmed in Guatemala and failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2010) (setting forth elements required to establish eligibility for asylum).

Because Hernandez-Cardona has not established eligibility for asylum, she necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, Hernandez-Cardona does not raise any arguments regarding the denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues 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.
     