FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADEL ALI ALI ALSOOFI, No. 06-73204
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-635-241
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Adel Ali Ali Alsoofi, a native and citizen of Yemen, 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 (“CAT”), and
*
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).
denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law and we review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311
F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Alsoofi established
extraordinary or changed circumstances that excuse the untimely filing of his
asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4),(5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479
F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, Alsoofi’s asylum
claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determinations that the threats
Alsoofi experienced in Yemen and the murder of his mother’s relatives did not rise
to the level of persecution and that he failed to establish a clear probability of
future persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-39 (9th Cir. 2000) (threats
did not demonstrate past persecution or establish clear probability of future
persecution); see also Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991)
(requiring “pattern of persecution closely tied to the petitioner” where violence
against family members is basis of claim). Accordingly, Alsoofi’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
2 06-73204
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Alsoofi did not show a likelihood of torture if returned to Yemen. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alsoofi’s motion to remand
because he failed to submit evidence of a bona fide marriage. See Malhi v. INS,
336 F.3d 989, 993-95 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding denial of motion to reopen where
petitioner failed to demonstrate prima facie case of bona fide marriage).
Contrary to Alsoofi’s contentions, the BIA did not impose a new evidentiary
requirement, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2)(i)(B), or fail adequately to address his
claim of changed circumstances, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603-04
(9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Alsoofi’s due process contentions fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 06-73204