Jose Rey Felipe v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE REY MENDOZA FELIPE, No. 11-72679
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-495-747
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Rey Mendoza Felipe, a native and citizen of the Philippines, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Felipe failed to
establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479
F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Thus, his asylum claim is time-
barred.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Felipe’s past
harm from a random mugging did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (persecution is an
extreme concept). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination
that Felipe’s future fear lacked a nexus to a protected ground. See Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“desire to be free from harassment
by criminals motivated by theft or random violence . . . bears no nexus to a
protected ground”). Thus, Felipe’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief, because
Felipe has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government of the Philippines if he is returned. See
2 11-72679
Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-72679