FEROZA BILKIS and RUMANA ISLAM 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).
The Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge for the U.S.***
District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FEROZA BILKIS and RUMANA ISLAM,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73697
Agency Nos. A079-541-788
A079-541-789
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: FISHER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and GARBIS, Senior District
Judge.***
Feroza Bilkis and Rumana Islam appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their
FILED
MAR 29 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
consolidated applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
On appeal, Petitioners present no argument that the Bangladeshi government
is unwilling or unable to control the alleged persecutors. As a result, the argument
is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).
Because we deny review of Petitioners’ asylum and withholding claims on this
independently dispositive ground, we need not address their remaining arguments.
See Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]o demonstrate
persecution . . . [for purposes of asylum], the applicant must show that abuse was
committed by the government or forces the government is either unable or
unwilling to control.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Reyes-Reyes v. Ashcroft,
384 F.3d 782, 788 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that to establish eligibility for non-
discretionary withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that the source of the
persecution is either “the government or . . . persons . . . which the government is
unable or unwilling to control”).
Petitioners have also waived their CAT claim by failing to meaningfully
challenge its denial on appeal. See Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073,
1082–83 (9th Cir. 2011).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --