NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SAIYASI LOVOLEVU, No. 13-70802
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-042-981
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Saiyasi Lovolevu, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Lovolevu’s contention that he is at risk of
harm in Fiji based on applying for asylum in the United States because he failed to
raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lovolevu
failed to establish past persecution because his mistreatment by the military did not
rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th
Cir. 2006) (evidence did not compel a contrary result). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that Lovolevu did not establish an objectively well-
founded fear of persecution by the Fijian government. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333
F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution was “too
speculative”). Thus, Lovolevu’s asylum claim fails.
Because Lovolevu failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, his
claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Lovolevu failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be
2 13-70802
tortured if returned to Fiji. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.
2006) (evidence did not compel finding of a likelihood of torture).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 13-70802