FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHALVA MANGOSHVILI; et al., No. 07-73217
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A096-021-882
A096-021-883
v. A096-021-885
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
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.
Shalva Mangoshvili and his family, natives and citizens of Georgia, 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, withholding of removal, and relief 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006),
and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Mangoshvili’s contention that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel before the IJ because he did not raise this claim to
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Mangoshvili did not
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear on account of a protected ground
because he failed to demonstrate that the criminals who extorted money from him
were motivated, even in part, by an actual or imputed political opinion. See
Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489-90 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Sagaydak v.
Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (petitioners must show persecutors
were motivated by a protected ground). In addition, Mangoshvili failed to exhaust
his claim based on membership in a particular social group. See Barron, 358 F.3d
at 678. Accordingly, Mangoshvili’s asylum claim fails.
Because Mangoshvili failed to establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that he failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Mangoshvili’s CAT claim
2 07-73217
because he failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to
Georgia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 07-73217