Amira Riveral, a.k.a. Amira Ahmed Hashim 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AMIRA RIVERAL, a.k.a. Amira Ahmed
Hashim,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70745
Agency No. A078-009-261
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.
Amira Riveral, a native of Libya and citizen of Bulgaria, 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,
FILED
JUL 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 09-70745
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). 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 Riveral established
extraordinary circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). In addition, we lack jurisdiction to consider her
unexhausted challenge to the factual allegation in the Notice to Appear regarding
the termination of nonimmigrant student status. See Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d
1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.
Riveral testified that she was never approached, verbally harassed, or
physically harmed in Bulgaria. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding
that Riveral failed to establish that she experienced past persecution in Bulgaria on
account of her Muslim religion and Middle Eastern appearance. See Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). We lack jurisdiction to review
Riveral’s contention that the IJ failed to consider the harms stated in her asylum
application because she failed to raise this to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3 09-70745
finding that Riveral failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir 2003). Accordingly, Riveral’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Riveral failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured if
returned to Bulgaria. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --