Burmaa Chogsom v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BURMAA CHOGSOM, No. 08-71756
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-256-197
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 9, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: KLEINFELD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, District
Judge.***
*
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).
***
The Honorable William E. Smith, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Burma Chogsom petitions for review of a BIA decision denying
her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
reject her arguments and deny her petition for review.
We review factual findings underlying the BIA’s denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture for
substantial evidence. Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007).
Chogsom claims that she was persecuted in Mongolia because of her membership
in the Mongolian Democratic Party and because she was a descendent of
Mongolian nobility. However, reviewing the record as a whole, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Chogsom’s political opinions and
social group were not a central reason for any mistreatment she may have suffered.
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009). Since Chogsom
cannot meet her burden of proof for asylum, she necessarily cannot qualify for
withholding of removal. Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir. 2006).
Chogsom claims she is entitled to relief under the Convention Against
Torture because she suffered torture when her ex-husband’s ex-wife attacked and
2
harassed her. However, the record shows that the police protected Chogsom from
the alleged attacks on multiple occasions, and Chogsom has no evidence to show
that the government in any way participated in her mistreatment. Therefore, even
if Chogsom’s mistreatment constituted torture, substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s determination that the mistreatment was not done “with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official.” Abufayad v. Holder, 632 F.3d 623, 632 (9th
Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2)).
Finally, Chogsom argues that she was denied due process in her proceeding
before the IJ because she received inadequate translation. We cannot consider this
claim because Chogsom failed to exhaust it in her appeal to the BIA. Meihua
Huang v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
PETITION DENIED.
3