NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONA SEGATI DUIKORO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71842 

Agency No. A208-968-322 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2022**

San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Jona Segati Duikoro, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of a 

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration 

judge’s denial of Duikoro’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 18 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the agency’s factual 

findings for substantial evidence. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 

2014). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Duikoro did not

establish a clear probability of future persecution for purposes of withholding of 

removal. See id. at 791 (“To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must 

show a ‘clear probability’ of future persecution.” (citation omitted)). Duikoro did 

not show that political persecution of his stepfather created a “pattern of 

persecution closely tied” to Duikoro, Arriaga-Barrientos v. U.S.I.N.S., 937 F.2d 

411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991), and testimony that family members have remained in Fiji 

without incident weakens his argument, see Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 

1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A] petitioner’s fear of future persecution is weakened, even 

undercut, when similarly-situated family members living in the petitioner’s home 

country are not harmed.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Nor did 

he establish a clear probability of persecution based on vague or indirect threats. 

See Marcos v. Gonzalez, 410 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005) (“What matters is 

whether the group making the threat has the will or ability to carry it out.” (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Duikoro failed to 

“establish that he . . . is more likely than not to suffer intentionally-inflicted cruel 
 3 

and inhuman treatment if removed” to Fiji for purposes of CAT protection. Garcia, 

749 F.3d at 791 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Duikoro concedes 

that he was not harmed in the past, the record does not establish that his 

stepfather’s political activities put him at risk of torture, and the family members to 

whom he is similarly situated have remained in Fiji unharmed. See Tamang, 598 

F.3d at 1094–95 (where an applicant had personally suffered no past persecution 

and similarly situated family members remained in his home country without 

harm, the record did not compel the conclusion that he merited CAT protection).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.