Ramzi Eid Awwad Alrawashdeh 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMZI EID AWWAD
ALRAWASHDEH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73619
Agency No. A098-263-702
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ramzi Eid Awwad Alrawashdeh, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73619 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition
for review.
Alrawashdeh fails to challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that
his asylum application was time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are not addressed in the argument
portion of a brief are deemed waived). He also does not challenge the denial of his
CAT claim. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to his asylum and CAT
claims.
Alrawashdeh claims that because he and his girlfriend were involved in a
romantic relationship before marriage, his girlfriend’s father threatened and stalked
him. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Alrawashdeh failed
to demonstrate he was or will be harmed by forces the government of Jordan is
unwilling or unable to control. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072
(9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --