
    Volodia GRIGORIAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. Artem Grigorian, Petitioner, v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent. Genrita Aroutiounian, Petitioner, v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 03-71746, 03-71748, 03-71754.
    Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXXXXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.
    
    Decided Feb. 10, 2005.
    Volodia Grigorian, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Artem Grigorian, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Genrita Aroutiounian, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel,Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James E. Grimes, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office Of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Volodia Grigorian, his wife Genrita Aroutiounian, and their son, Artem Grigorian, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of deportation and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“Convention”). Because transitional rules apply, Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for substantial evidence, see Meza-Manay v. INS, 139 F.3d 759, 762 (9th Cir.1998), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ found changed country conditions such that petitioners do not have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. Petitioners do not challenge either that finding or the denial of relief under the Convention in the opening brief. They have therefore waived these issues. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     