Case ID: f-appx_276/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Johannes Alexander KULLIT, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70414.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2008.
    
    Filed April 29, 2008.
    Johannes Alexander Kullit, pro se.
    Richard Zanfardino, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Johannes Alexander Kullit, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his asylum application and denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review fact finding for substantial evidence, Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 924 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review in part and dismiss it in part.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Kullit has shown extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam); 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4), (5).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Kullit has not demonstrated the clear probability of future persecution required for withholding of removal. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th Cir.2001).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Kullit’s contentions regarding CAT protection, because he did not raise them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.