Teresa C. Callegas; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TERESA C. CALLEGAS; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71231
Agency Nos. A097-371-406
A097-371-407
A097-371-479
A097-371-480
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Teresa C. Callegas, and her family, natives and citizens of Columbia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
FILED
SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-71231 2
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738,
742 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Callegas failed to challenge the IJ’s finding that her asylum application was
untimely before the BIA. Accordingly, her asylum claim is dismissed. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion is mandatory and
jurisdictional).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Callegas did not
demonstrate a clear probability of persecution because she has not shown the harm
her family suffered was on account of a protected ground. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1992). Moreover, her fear of future
persecution was not objectively reasonable in light of the fact that her ex-husband
has remained in Columbia unharmed. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th
Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Callegas’s withholding of
removal claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Callegas failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if she
returns to Colombia. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 748.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-71231 3
We reject Callegas’s contention that the BIA failed to sufficiently articulate
its reasoning because it is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --