NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEROY ALFONSO BRYAN, AKA No. 20-72082 Frederick Karl Jost, AKA Frederick Kirk Jost, Agency No. A020-895-479 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Leroy Alfonso Bryan, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review. Bryan’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting petitioner’s contentions that the IJ violated his right to due process where the IJ provided petitioner a list of free legal service providers, petitioner had an opportunity to obtain counsel, and the IJ developed a thorough factual record during the proceedings). The record does not compel the conclusion that Bryan established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, Bryan’s asylum claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Bryan failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive” (citation 2 20-72082 and internal quotation marks omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Bryan failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Jamaica. See id. at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Bryan’s withholding of removal claim fails. We do not address Bryan’s contentions as to nexus and relocation because the BIA did not deny relief on those grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Bryan failed to show it is more …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals