FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMED A. ABDULGHANI, No. 11-70060
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-020-195
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Mohamed A. Abdulghani, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for
substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and
we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Abdulghani filed his asylum
application within a reasonable time after his valid student visa status expired. See
id. at 1181. Accordingly, Abdulghani’s asylum claim fails.
Abdulghani does not challenge the agency’s finding that he failed to
demonstrate past persecution in Yemen. Further, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Abdulghani has not shown it is more likely than not
that he will be persecuted by his former girlfriend’s tribe when eighteen years have
passed since he left Yemen, his former girlfriend has since married, and the
country reports do not compel the conclusion a man in Abdulghani’s position is
subject to harm. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (future
harm too speculative). We reject Abdulghani’s contention that the BIA did not
adequately consider all his evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592,
603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner had not overcome the presumption that the BIA
reviewed the record). Accordingly, Abdulghani’s withholding of removal claim
also fails.
2 11-70060
Finally, Abdulghani’s CAT claim fails because he failed to establish it is
more likely than not that he faces torture if removed to Yemen. See Zheng v.
Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To receive relief under CAT,
Petitioner has the burden of showing that he ‘is more likely than not to be tortured
in the country of removal.’”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-70060