Maloni Vakacavu Qioniwasa; Olimaipa Leba Qioniwasa 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MALONI VAKACAVU QIONIWASA;
OLIMAIPA LEBA QIONIWASA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71320
Agency Nos. A098-453-210
A099-580-360
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71320 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 of 2 --