
    Bernardus WIRASTO; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73738.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 18, 2011.
    Kathleen S. Koh, Law Offices of Kathleen S. Koh, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esq., R. Lynne Harris, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bernardus Wirasto and his wife and sons, all natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Wirasto did not establish eligibility for asylum, because the evidence does not compel the conclusion that the criminal proceedings pending against him in Indonesia constituted persecution or were motivated by his actual or imputed political opinion. See Abedini v. U.S., 971 F.2d 188, 191 (9th Cir.1992).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Wirasto did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal because the evidence does not distinguish the situation the petitioners potentially would face upon return to Indonesia from that experienced by all Christian' Indonesians, and the petitioners have not demonstrated the requisite level of individualized risk necessary to compel a finding of a clear probability of future persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc); cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004).

Wirasto has forfeited any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument in 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.
     