Paphavady Thepsimuang v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAPHAVADY THEPSIMUANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70005
Agency No. A205-622-174
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Paphavady Thepsimuang, a native and citizen of Laos, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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).
FILED
AUG 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70005
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Thepsimuang established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, Thepsimuang’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Thepsimuang
failed to 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”); see also Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (for
withholding of removal, an applicant must show a clear probability of future
persecution). Thus, Thepsimuang’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Thepsimuang failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Laos. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Thepsimuang’s contentions that the IJ
ignored evidence, applied the incorrect legal standard, and violated her right to due

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70005
process. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction over claims not raised to agency).
We reject as unsupported by the record Thepsimuang’s contentions that the
BIA ignored evidence, applied the incorrect legal standard, or otherwise erred in
the analysis of her claims.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --