Satya Chum v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Satya Chum v. Eric Holder, Jr.

478 F. App'x 458

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 7, 2012

Docket11-71441

StatusUnpublished

This text of 478 F. App'x 458 (Satya Chum v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Satya Chum v. Eric Holder, Jr., 478 F. App'x 458 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Satya Chum, a citizen and native of Cambodia, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) rejection of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief claims.

The BIA did not err in denying asylum because Chum’s application was time-barred. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The circumstances to which Chum points, such as the dissolution of his marriage and maintenance of lawful status, do not excuse his untimeliness because he did not file within a “reasonable period” after these circumstances ended. 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5)(iv); see Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chum had not shown he would more likely than not be subject to persecution or torture upon his return to Cambodia. In the past he had faced only one unfulfilled threat without accompanying harassment, economic harm, or menacing follow-ups. See Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000). The record demonstrates that his involvement in the Sam Rainsy Party was far less than that of individuals who were targeted for persecution or torture.

This court lacks jurisdiction to review denials of voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.2004).

The petition for review is DENIED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

Satya Chum, a citizen and native of Cambodia, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) rejection of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief claims.

The BIA did not err in denying asylum because Chum’s application was time-barred. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The circumstances to which Chum points, such as the dissolution of his marriage and maintenance of lawful status, do not excuse his untimeliness because he did not file within a “reasonable period” after these circumstances ended. 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5)(iv); see Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chum had not shown he would more likely than not be subject to persecution or torture upon his return to Cambodia. In the past he had faced only one unfulfilled threat without accompanying harassment, economic harm, or menacing follow-ups. See Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000). The record demonstrates that his involvement in the Sam Rainsy Party was far less than that of individuals who were targeted for persecution or torture.

This court lacks jurisdiction to review denials of voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.2004).

The petition for review is DENIED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 F. App'x 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/satya-chum-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack