
    Maloni Vakacavu QIONIWASA; Olimaipa Leba Qioniwasa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71320.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 13, 2013.
    Joel Henry Wolff, Red Rock Legal, PLLC, Bellevue, WA, for Petitioners.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Parker Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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