ASI LALKY, AKA Abu Al Rub, AKA Asad Asi 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ASI LALKY, AKA Abu Al Rub, AKA
Asad Asi,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70777
Agency No. A078-198-214
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2010**
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: SCHROEDER, O’SCANNLAIN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Asi Lalky, a native and citizen of Israel, appeals the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of
removal. Lalky contends the BIA erred in finding his asylum application time
FILED
AUG 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
barred. He argues as well that he is entitled to withholding of removal because
there is a “pattern or practice” of persecution of Israeli Arabs in Israel. See 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2)(i). He also claims to have suffered past persecution.
The BIA did not err in finding Lalky’s asylum application time barred.
Aliens are required to file an asylum application within one year of coming to the
United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Lalky did not file his application for
over nine years, and has failed to demonstrate “changed” or “extraordinary”
circumstances that would excuse this lengthy delay. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528
F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that there is not a
“pattern or practice” of persecution against Israeli Arabs. See Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2009). While there may exist widespread
discrimination against Israeli Arabs, the record does not compel the conclusion that
Israeli Arabs suffer abuses that rise to the level of persecution. See id. Finally, we
lack jurisdiction to consider Lalky’s claim that he suffered past persecution,
because he failed to present that claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
The petition for review is DENIED. The motion to withdraw as counsel is
DENIED as moot.

-- 2 of 2 --