FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZEIAD SALMAN, a.k.a. Zeian Issa No. 10-72120
Salmam, a.k.a. Zeiad Issa Salman,
Agency No. A077-184-097
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Zeiad Salman, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, see Zheng v.
Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Salman did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the
consent or acquiescence of the Jordanian government. See id. at 1194
(acquiescence includes “both actual knowledge and willful blindness”).
Salman’s contention that the agency did not consider all of the evidence
fails, because he has not overcome the presumption the agency reviewed the
record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
To the extent Salman contends ineffective assistance of counsel, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review the claim because it was not exhausted before the BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, to the extent Salman relies on letters from his family in his opening
brief, we decline to consider the evidence because our review of the BIA’s order is
limited to the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-72120