FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAJID ALI, No. 07-72723
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-630-130
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sajid Ali, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that extraordinary circumstances
excused Ali’s untimely filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5);
Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Ali’s
contention that the IJ failed to properly evaluate his extraordinary circumstances
claim is belied by the record. Accordingly, Ali’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Ali failed to establish
his cousin’s verbal and physical attacks against him based on his cousin’s desire to
own family property were on account of a protected ground. See Bolshakov v. INS,
133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir. 1998) (denying petition for review because
petitioners did not establish that extortion was on account of an enumerated
ground); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“The Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’
for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to
Ali’s withholding of removal claim. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th
Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Ali
failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by, at the
2 07-72723
instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned to
Pakistan. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-72723