Dora Elizabeth Rivas-De Leiva and her son, are natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming 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 de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

We reject petitioners’ claim that they are eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on Rivas-De Leiva’s membership in a particular social group, namely, young El Salvadorean women opposed to gangs. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir.2009) (rejecting as a particular social group “young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang recruitment but refuse because they disagree with the gang’s criminal activities”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”) (internal quotation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of political opinion or imputed political opinion. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747 . Because petitioners failed to demonstrate the harm they fear will be on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to their asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856 .

Petitioners do not raise any arguments in their opening brief regarding the agency’s denial of their CAT claim. 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.