Bakary Fansu Conteh v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAKARY FANSU CONTEH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-2073
Agency No.
A088-206-223
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Bakary Fansu Conteh, a native and citizen of The Gambia, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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
SEP 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-2073
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Because Conteh does not challenge the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination, frivolousness determination, or merits findings regarding his future
persecution claims, we do not address them. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706
F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
Conteh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. We decline to reach
Conteh’s contentions that were raised for the first time in his reply brief. See
Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for the first time
in the reply brief are waived.”).
Conteh also does not contest the BIA’s determination that he waived
challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT protection. Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d 1072 at
1079-80. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Conteh’s CAT claim.
The record does not support Conteh’s contentions that the agency ignored
arguments, failed to consider evidence, violated his constitutional rights, or
otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention);
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not
overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record); see also Padilla-

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-2073
Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-
process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and
prejudice.”).
We also reject Conteh’s contention that the BIA erred in failing to
reconsider its dismissal when reissuing its January 2022 decision, where Conteh
did not request reconsideration.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --