FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLSEN CLEMENTE; MILANNE LIM No. 10-73894
CLEMENTE,
Agency Nos. A098-410-380
Petitioners, A098-410-381
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Carlsen Clemente and Milanne Lim Clemente, natives and citizens of the
Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 861-62 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed
to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse their untimely
asylum applications. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v.
Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Thus, petitioners’
asylum claim is time-barred.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish past persecution or fear of future persecution on account of a
protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
random violence” lacks nexus); Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998)
(petitioner must show particularized risk). Thus, petitioners’ withholding of
removal claim fails. In light of this determination, we need not reach petitioners’
arguments regarding particular social group or political opinion.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-73894