FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARLTON SHAINE POWELL, No. 11-70077
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-514-520
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Darlton Shaine Powell, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo questions of law.
Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and grant
in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Powell does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that his
asylum application was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are
deemed waived). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.
We reject Powell’s request for oral argument, including his requests to argue
issues related to corroboration and his convictions. In addition, we reject his
contentions regarding past persecution, nexus, and countrywide fear because the
BIA did not deny relief on these bases. We also reject his claims that the agency
relied on extra-record evidence and that he could not corroborate his claim due to
representation-related problems with his application and hearing because they are
not supported by the record. Further, we deny Powell’s motion to submit new
evidence and grant respondent’s motion to strike new evidence. See Fisher v. INS,
79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the
administrative record).
2 11-70077
As to Powell’s withholding of removal and CAT claims, the BIA denied
relief because Powell did not present evidence to corroborate his claim of being
bisexual. However, because the agency did not have the benefit of our decision in
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089-94 (9th Cir. 2011), regarding notice and
opportunity to provide corroborating evidence, we grant the petition for review
with respect to these claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 11-70077