
    Valentina Andraniki SARKSYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70468.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 25, 2010.
    Joseph Steven Porta, Esquire, Law Offices of Cohen Porta & Kim, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Remi Adale-mo, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Esquire, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Valentina Andraniki Sarksyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, and her children, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying Sarksyan’s 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, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and deny the petition for review.

Sarksyan fears persecution from Armenian authorities based on her husband’s activities with the Dashnaktsutyun political party. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Sarksyan did not establish that she was or would be persecuted on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (to reverse the agency’s finding “we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original); Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489-90 (9th Cir.1997). Accordingly, Sarksyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2005).

Petitioners’ opening brief does not raise any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that issues 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     