Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0635-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohammad Khaleel Al BATTAT, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70500
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 14, 2016  San Francisco, California
    Filed November 16, 2016
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
    Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Trial Attorney, Matthew B. George, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mohammad Khaleel^ A1 Battat, a native of Palestine and citizen of Jordan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), as well as his petition for special rule cancellation of removal pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition.

1. The BIA held that Al Battat failed to appeal the merits of the IJ’s determinations that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief, and that his asylum claim was time-barred. On appeal, Al Battat concedes that his asylum claim was time-barred, and he offers no challenge to the BIA’s determination that any arguments about withholding of removal or CAT relief were not preserved for appeal. Any arguments related to those forms of relief are thus unexhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to review them. See Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014).

2. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Al Battat failed to corroborate his claim of spousal mental abuse and, therefore, affirmed denial of his application for special rule cancellation of removal. Al Battat does not argue that such corroboration was unnecessary; he states only that he does not know why the requested corroboration was unavailable. Al Battat has thus failed to demonstrate that the record compels the conclusion that corroborating evidence was unavailable, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4), and he offers no other basis for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.