NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADAM AKHMEDOVICH AZIMOV, No. 15-70694 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-865-232 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 24, 2021** Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. 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, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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 .”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).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. 2 15-70694 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. 3 15-70694 15-70694 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Adam Azimov v. Merrick Garland 28 June 2021 Agency Unpublished 1f66ac30034c45bcca86fb4a8d94b2f57afc0092
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals