Opinion
No. 06-72328.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed January 31, 2011.
Marvin M. Gong, Dorothy A. Harper, Law Offices of Harper Gong, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A095-185-230.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Petitioner Moe Tin-U, a native and citizen of Burma, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. We affirm.
We have jurisdiction to review the timeliness of Petitioner's application for asylum and the exceptional circumstances exception. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2008). Petitioner failed to file his application for asylum within one year after the date of his arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Petitioner did not show that he had extraordinary circumstances justifying his five-month delay in filing his petition for asylum upon expiration of his visa. See Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010).
The BIA did not err in ruling that Petitioner failed to show a clear probability that he would be subject to future persecution because he is gay or because he expressed his political opinions. See INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984). Further, although Petitioner may be arrested on his return for failing to maintain a passport, he did not prove that such arrest will more likely than not result in torture in contravention of the CAT. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that even though petitioner suffered persecution by being arrested and beaten on account of his political opinions, such conduct did not rise to the level of torture).