Rif v. Gonzales , 214 F. App'x 412 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 16, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60167
Summary Calendar
LIVIU RIF,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 608 473
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Liviu Rif, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions this
court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Rif
argues that he demonstrated exceptional circumstances for his
failure to timely file his application for asylum. He maintains
that he demonstrated past persecution because of his political
opinion and that he would likely be persecuted on that basis in
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 06-60167
-2-
Romania in the future. He also argues that he is entitled to
relief under the CAT.
We have no jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination on
the timeliness of Rif’s asylum application. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3). That portion of Rif’s petition for review
challenging the denial of asylum is dismissed.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the finding that Rif did not show that he was
persecuted because of his political opinion or that he is likely
to be persecuted because of his political opinion upon his
removal to Romania. Rif thus has not shown that the BIA erred in
denying his application for withholding of removal. Mikhael v.
INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76,
78 (5th Cir. 1994).
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
determination that Rif was not entitled to relief under the CAT
because he did not establish that he would be tortured upon his
return to Romania. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1), (a)(2); Bah v.
Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2003); Efe v. Ashcroft,
293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Rif’s petition
for review of the BIA’s denial of his application for withholding
of removal and relief under the CAT is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.