NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADAM AKHMEDOVICH AZIMOV, No. 15-70694
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-865-232
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 24, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Adam Akhmedovich Azimov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application 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 the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Azimov’s contention that the late filing of
his asylum application should be excused, because he did not challenge the IJ’s
determination of that issue in his appeal to the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Azimov failed to
establish either past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution in Russia.
See, e.g., Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[P]ersecution is
an extreme concept [that] does not include every sort of treatment our society
regards as offensive.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hakeem v. INS, 273
F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is
weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live
in the country without incident . . . .”), superseded by statute on other grounds as
stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Thus, Azimov’s claim for withholding of removal fails.
2 15-70694
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Azimov failed to show that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Russia. Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-70694