United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitJan 22, 2009
No. 05-73732 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2009)

No. 05-73732.

January 22, 2009.

Submitted January 13, 2009. MEMORANDUM

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.Petr. 34(a)(2).

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A077-305-086.

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Mohammad Haji Ali Akbari, a native and citizen of Iran, 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 of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir. 1994), and deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that the changed circumstances or extraordinary circumstances exceptions excused the untimely filing of Akbari's asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 648, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of withholding of removal because Akbari concedes that he did not suffer past persecution, and neither his testimony nor the documentary evidence compel a finding of a clear probability of future persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the record does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against converts from Islam in Iran. See Kotasz, 31 F.3d at 852-53.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Akbari has failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Iran. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).