AZIMOV v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Adam Akhmedovich AZIMOV, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70694

Decided: June 28, 2021

Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Carmen DiAmore-Siah, Esquire, Attorney, LAW Office of Carmen DiAmore-Siah, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ - 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

MEMORANDUM **

Adam Akhmedovich Azimov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Azimov's contention that the late filing of his asylum application should be excused, because he did not challenge the IJ's determination of that issue in his appeal to the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Azimov failed to establish either past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution in Russia. See, e.g., Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[P]ersecution is an extreme concept [that] does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant's claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident․”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Thus, Azimov's claim for withholding of removal fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT protection because Azimov failed to show that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Russia. Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.