NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 16 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMAD KHALEEL AL BATTAT, No. 14-70500
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-638-403
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit
Judges.
Mohammad Khaleel Al Battat, a native of Palestine and citizen of Jordan,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”), as well as his petition for special rule cancellation of removal
pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition.
1. The BIA held that Al Battat failed to appeal the merits of the IJ’s
determinations that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT
relief, and that his asylum claim was time-barred. On appeal, Al Battat concedes
that his asylum claim was time-barred, and he offers no challenge to the BIA’s
determination that any arguments about withholding of removal or CAT relief
were not preserved for appeal. Any arguments related to those forms of relief are
thus unexhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to review them. See Alvarado v.
Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014).
2. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Al Battat failed to
corroborate his claim of spousal mental abuse and, therefore, affirmed denial of his
application for special rule cancellation of removal. Al Battat does not argue that
such corroboration was unnecessary; he states only that he does not know why the
requested corroboration was unavailable. Al Battat has thus failed to demonstrate
that the record compels the conclusion that corroborating evidence was
2
unavailable, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4), and he offers no other basis for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3