FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HABIB KOLAWOLE KOFI BRAIMAH, No. 12-70295
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-151-845
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013 **
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Habib Kolawole Kofi Braimah, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Braimah established
extraordinary circumstances excusing his untimely asylum application. See
Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly,
Braimah’s asylum claim fails.
With respect to withholding of removal, Braimah does not challenge the
agency’s finding that he failed to demonstrate past persecution, but he fears
returning to Ghana because of his Ewe ethnicity, his Muslim religion, and his
family’s wealth. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Braimah
failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be subject to
persecution on account of a protected ground. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 962
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (persecution does not include “mere discrimination, as
offensive as it may be”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, Braimah’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Braimah failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
2 12-70295
at the instigation or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Ghana.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-70295