FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MALONI VAKACAVU QIONIWASA; No. 10-71320
OLIMAIPA LEBA QIONIWASA,
Agency Nos. A098-453-210
Petitioners, A099-580-360
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Maloni Vakacavu Qioniwasa, lead petitioner, and his spouse, Olimaipa Leba
Qioniwasa, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
*
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).
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and
we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s finding that they made no claim of
past persecution. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).
Lead petitioner testified that he is a pastor and would be mistreated in Fiji if
he speaks out against the government. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
finding that petitioners failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution
in Fiji. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution too
speculative). Accordingly, their withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction over any challenge petitioners raise to the IJ’s finding
that their asylum application was time-barred because they did not exhaust this
issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Further, contrary to petitioners’ contentions, they were not prevented from
addressing issues the IJ found troubling, and the BIA did not adopt and affirm the
IJ’s decision.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-71320