Yankuba Sawo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YANKUBA SAWO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71728
Agency No. A098-761-353
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Yankuba Sawo, a native and citizen of The Gambia, 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”). Our
FILED
AUG 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-71728
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Sawo’s unexhausted contentions that
changed circumstances excuse his untimely asylum application, and that there is a
pattern and practice of persecution of members of his particular social group. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Even if Sawo is credible, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Sawo’s detention and mistreatment by police did not rise to the
level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995)
(minor physical abuse during a single, brief detention did not compel finding of
past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that
Sawo did not establish a clear probability of future persecution. See Nagoulko v.
INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too
speculative). Accordingly, Sawo’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Sawo failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to The Gambia. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --