Ousman Baldeh 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).
*** The Honorable Michael W. Mosman, District Judge for the District of
Oregon, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OUSMAN BALDEH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73635
Agency No. A096-556-752
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 2, 2010 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOSMAN, ***
District Judge.
Ousman Baldeh, a native and citizen of the Gambia, petitions for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration
FILED
FEB 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Page 2 of 2
Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
1. Baldeh’s petition for review of his asylum claim is denied. The asylum
application was untimely and the IJ’s determination that no changed circumstances
existed to excuse the delay was supported by substantial evidence. See Dhital v.
Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008).
2. Baldeh’s petition for review of his withholding of removal claim is also
denied. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Baldeh failed to
establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, thereby falling short
of the required showing of a “clear probability” of persecution. Canales-Vargas v.
Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 746 (9th Cir. 2006).
3. Baldeh’s petition for review of his claim under the CAT is dismissed
because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedy by raising this issue before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --