Alipate Ravatunawa Ratukalou; Oripa Saurara Ratukalou v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALIPATE RAVATUNAWA
RATUKALOU; ORIPA SAURARA
RATUKALOU,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73739
Agency Nos. A087-059-084
A087-059-083
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Alipate Ravatunawa Ratukalou and Oripa Saurara Ratukalou, natives and
citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
FILED
DEC 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

their application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Tamang v. Holder,
598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the finding that petitioners established changed
or extraordinary circumstances to excuse their untimely asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4), (5); Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1089-90 (setting forth requirements
for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum
claim fails.
The BIA found petitioners did not appeal the IJ’s denial of withholding of
removal. Petitioners do not challenge this finding. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and
argued are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73739 2

-- 2 of 2 --