
    Maria De Las Nieves REYES-VELAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70738.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 21, 2011.
    Nadeem H. Makada, Esquire, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Regina Byrd, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, 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

Maria de las Nieves Reyes-Velazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for 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 factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Reyes-Velazquez was not threatened or harmed in Mexico by anyone, and she has not established that her brother-in-law’s political opponents have imputed or are likely to impute a political opinion to her. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489-90 (9th Cir.1997). Further, Reyes-Velazquez has not established that the incidents her brother and uncle experienced had any connection to her, see Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th'Cir.2009), or that they occurred on account of a protected ground, see Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1176-77 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Reyes-Velazquez failed to establish a clear probability of persecution on account of an imputed political opinion or her membership in a particular social group. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1170-72 (9th Cir.2005).

Reyes-Velazquez has not made any argument regarding the agency’s 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     