Heang Ea; Malin Tang v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RA/Research 06-74727
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HEANG EA; MALIN TANG,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74727
Agency Nos. A097-356-930
A097-356-931
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Heang Ea and Malin Tang, his former wife, and natives and citizens of
Cambodia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RA/Research 06-74727 2
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Chebchoub
v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners established
extraordinary circumstances excusing their untimely filed asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam). As a result, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Peitioners’ asylum application omitted that they were attacked by members
of the ruling party in Cambodia while on Ea’s motorcycle. Because this is the
most serious instance of alleged persecution, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962
(9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of removal claim fails.
We reject petitioners’ contention regarding the IJ’s denial of CAT relief on
the merits because the BIA only adopted and affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding. See Ramirez-Altamirano v. Holder, 563 F.3d 800, 804 (9th Cir. 2009)
(this court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --