NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANBIR SINGH, No. 14-73060
Petitioner, Agency No. A041-813-074
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Ranbir Singh, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and
review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92
(9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Singh contends he will be persecuted based on country conditions for Indo-
Fijians, and based on Singh’s and his family’s past experiences in Fiji. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh failed to establish that it is
more likely than not he will be persecuted. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971,
975-77 (9th Cir. 2009) (although petitioner was discriminated against and
harassed, he failed to make a compelling showing that his fear was objectively
reasonable); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of
persecution “too speculative”); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d
995, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2003) (agency rationally construed country report). We
reject as without merit Singh’s contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal
standard or otherwise erred in its analysis. Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider
Singh’s contention that the IJ erred in his interpretation of what constitutes
persecution because he did not raise this issue to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Singh’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Finally, Singh does not challenge the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See
2 14-73060
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-73060