Juan Nepomuceno Ramirez- Giraldo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUAN NEPOMUCENO RAMIREZ-
GIRALDO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74601
Agency No. A079-803-041
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 6, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, D.W. NELSON and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Nepomuceno Ramirez-Giraldo (“petitioner”), a native and citizen of
Colombia, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) final order
FILED
DEC 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Ramirez-Giraldo did not appeal the IJ’s denial of his claim for protection1
under the Convention Against Torture to either the BIA or this court. Any such
claims is therefore waived. See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th
Cir. 2007).
2
of removal, denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We have1
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. When the “BIA adopts the decision of the IJ,
we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432
F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quotations omitted). We review the
IJ’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d
892, 895 (9th Cir. 2003). We review the IJ’s changed and extraordinary
circumstances determinations for substantial evidence. See Tampubolon v. Holder,
610 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646,
657 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th
Cir. 2008).
Even if Ramirez-Giraldo could show deficient performance of counsel, he
failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by such performance because substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Ramirez-Giraldo is ineligible for asylum
and withholding due to his failure to show a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(iii); Strickland v.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 699-700 (1984); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d
738, 745-47 (9th Cir. 2008).
In addition, the record does not compel a conclusion that Ramirez-Giraldo
qualified for the changed country conditions exception to the one-year filing
deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-
58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --