FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MISSAK KARABET KAVLAKIAN, No. 10-70745
a.k.a. Kolakian,
Agency No. A078-440-592
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Missak Karabet Kavlakian, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
*
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).
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 1998), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Kavlakian failed to
demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse the delay
in filing his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly,
we deny the petition as to Kavlakian’s asylum claim.
The agency found Kavlakian failed to establish who shot at him or for what
purpose, and the three visits from alleged Hezbollah members did not result in
threats or harm. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding
of removal because Kavlakian did not establish past persecution, see Singh, 134
F.3d at 967 (petitioner’s experiences must rise to the level of persecution and have
occurred because of a protected ground), or a clear probability of future
persecution, see Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner did
not establish a reasonable fear of future persecution on account of a protected
ground); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of
future persecution too speculative).
2 10-70745
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Kavlakian failed to establish he more likely than not will be tortured if returned to
Lebanon. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005).
Finally, we reject Kavlakian’s arguments regarding credibility because the
agency did not make an adverse credibility finding.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-70745