United States v. 2020-09-15 | 15-71082 | SHAHRAM TOKLEH V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAHRAM TOKLEH,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-71082

Agency No. A201-195-998

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Shahram Tokleh, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

SEP 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 15-71082
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 Tokleh established
extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Thus, Tokleh’s asylum claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Tokleh’s past persecution claim. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to consider claims not presented to the agency). Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s conclusion that Tokleh failed to establish a clear probability of future
persecution. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 935 (9th Cir. 2004) (no clear
probability of future persecution). Thus, Tokleh’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Tokleh failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Iran. See Aden v. Holder,
589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.