FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISMAEL BRAHIM TOUNEKTI, No. 08-75237
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-466-191
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ismael Brahim Tounekti, a native and citizen of Tunisia, petitions for review
of the 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 the
agency’s factual findings, and we review de novo the agency’s legal
determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Tounekti’s untimely asylum
application was filed within a reasonable period of time from when he last held
lawful status. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(iv); Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044,
1050 (9th Cir. 2008) (application filed 22 months after expiration of lawful
nonimmigrant status expired was not reasonable). Accordingly, his asylum claim
fails.
Tounekti does not contend he suffered past persecution. Rather, he contends
he faces a clear probability of future persecution because the government would
impute to him the Islamist political opinions of his cousin and brother-in-law, who
were both politically active and imprisoned by the government. Substantial
evidence supports the agency finding that Tounekti has not established a clear
probability of future persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th
Cir. 2003); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of
future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, his withholding of removal
claim fails.
2 08-75237
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Tounekti’s
CAT claim because he failed to show that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured by, or with the consent or acquiescence of Tunisian authorities if returned
to Tunisia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-75237