FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMSON WESLEY OMWENO, No. 09-70456
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-211-108
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.
Samson Wesley Omweno, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions pro se for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
Immigration Judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Omweno established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a), (5); see also Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172,
1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Omweno failed to establish past persecution or a clear
probability of persecution in Kenya based on a protected ground, including his
actual or imputed political opinion, his race or ethnicity as a Kiisi, his Christian
religion, or membership in a particular social group. See Parussimova v. Mukasey,
555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected
ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”).
Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Omweno failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured
upon return to Kenya. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1026 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70456