Patience Chima v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATIENCE CHIMA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70158
Agency No. A096-434-713
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Patience Chima, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand and
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
FILED
SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010), and for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th
Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
As an initial matter, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chima’s
motion to remand proceedings to the IJ for adjustment of status because the IJ
lacked jurisdiction to consider her adjustment application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.2(c)(3)(i) (in asylum-only proceedings, “all parties are prohibited from
raising or considering any other issues, including but not limited to issues of
admissibility, deportability, eligibility for waivers, and eligibility for any other
form of relief”); see also Nian v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1227, 1228 (9th Cir. 2012) (an
alien may seek asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in an asylum-
only proceeding, but no other forms of relief).
Chima testified she suffered mistreatment by witch doctors in Nigeria which
she did not report to authorities. The record does not compel the conclusion that
the government of Nigeria was unable or unwilling to protect Chima. See Castro-
Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel
conclusion that the government was unable or unwilling to control persecutors);
12-70158 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Rahimzadeh, 613 F.3d at 920-22 (discussing various means by which a petitioner
may fill the “gap in proof” left by the absence of a report to the police). Thus,
Chima’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Rahimzadeh, 613
F.3d at 923.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Chima did not establish that it is more likely than not she will be tortured
by the Nigerian government or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-70158 3

-- 3 of 3 --