FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 04 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK GATHIGI KARANJA, No. 09-70564
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-736-495
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Patrick Gathigi Karanja, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th
Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Karanja does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s determination that his
asylum application is time-barred.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Karanja did not
establish past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution in Kenya
because he failed to demonstrate that a protected ground was at least one central
reason for the death of his father. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734,
740-41 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Karanja’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
We reject Karanja’s contention that the BIA failed to address his CAT claim
because it expressly found he failed to raise any argument regarding the IJ’s denial
of CAT relief. We lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of Karanja’s CAT claim
because he did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
2 09-70564
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Karanja’s remaining contentions
because they are either unexhausted, see Barron, 358 F.3d at 678, or challenge a
BIA order that is not properly before this court, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (a
petition for review is the exclusive means of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 09-70564