Case ID: f-appx_550/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alipate Ravatunawa RATUKALOU; Oripa Saurara Ratukalou, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73739.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 19, 2013.
    H. Lisa Kobayashi, Kobayashi Law Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioners.
    Channah Farber, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.