Zakir Shakir, aka Saifuddin Adamali Suterwala; v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZAKIR SHAKIR, aka Saifuddin Adamali
Suterwala; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71964
Agency Nos. A076-456-441
A077-429-219
A077-429-221
A077-429-222
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Zakir Shakir, his wife, and two children, natives and citizens of Pakistan,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 07-71964 2
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005), and
we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners do not challenge the agency’s adverse
credibility determination, which is dispositive of their asylum and withholding of
removal claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived).
Accordingly, we deny the petition as to these claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA improperly analyzed their
CAT claim. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1282-84 (9th Cir. 2001).
Because petitioners do not point to any evidence in the record indicating it is more
likely than not they will be tortured if they return to Pakistan, and they do not
challenge the agency’s adverse credibility determination, their CAT claim fails.
See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156-57. Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review
petitioners’ contention that the IJ improperly analyzed their CAT claim because
they failed to raise this issue to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
676-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --