
    Karlo ZARGARYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72346.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
    
      Asbet Issakhanian, Law Offices of Asbet A. Issakhanian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Remi Ada-lemo, Linda S. Wendland, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Karlo Zargaryan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, and her daughter, a native of Russia and citizen of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 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, 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 finding that the brief detention and beating Zargaryan suffered in Armenia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Zargaryan does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her husband’s political activities or her ethnicity, because her husband and similarly situated father remain in Armenia without incident. See Anita v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1395 (9th Cir.1996).

Because Zargaryan did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Zargaryan has failed to set forth any substantive 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 supported by argument are deemed 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.
     