NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 13a0592n.06 Nos. 12-3340/4146 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT RACHAELNYAMAY EDENGA , Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM THE U

NI TED STATES BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

BEF ORE: GI L MAN, GRI FF I N, and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. Racha el Ny amay edeng a, a native of Z imbabwe, petitions throug h counsel for review of decisions of the Board of I mmigration Appea ls (B I A), dism issing her appea l from a decision of an immigra tion judge (I J ) denying her applications for asylum, withholding of remova l, and protec tion under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (CAT), and denying her motion to reope n the proce eding

. The case s have been consolidated for revie w. We g rante d Ny amay edeng a’s motion for a stay of re moval pending this review. Ny amay ed en ga wa s b o rn in 1956. She enter ed thi s country in 2001 as a depende nt of her then husband, who had a student visa. The couple’ s three sons also enter ed as depende nts. I n 2007, Ny amay edeng a and her husband divorce d. She attempted to chang e her status to a student, but was denied. She a lso applied for the above r elief.Nos. 12-3340/4146

Nyamaye denga v. H

older Ny amay edeng a bases her applications for relief on her claimed fea r of perse cution in Z imbabwe on the basis of her political opinion. She claims to belong to the opposition party and to have provided financ ial support for her brother, who ran unsucce ssfully for Parliament as a member of that party

. Her brother has since died, and Ny amay edeng a believes his death from a hear t attack

was broug ht on by hara ssment from tho s e i n favor of the ruling party and its president, Robert Mug abe. Her brother’ s death cer tificate, howeve r, s h o ws t h at he died from rena l failure and hepatitis. His widow, acc ording to Ny amay edeng a, was forc ed to close her sho p b ec au s e her
customers wer e threa tened, and she now works from home. Ny amayed en ga’ s n ep hew has left Z imbabwe for South Afric a due to vague claims of threa ts from the ruling party

. Ny amay edeng a does not claim that she or any o ne in her family has ever been assaulted or arr ested based on their political opinion. The I J denied all relief

. First, the I J found that Ny amay edeng a’s application for asylum was untimely

. In the alternative, he denied the asylum claim and her other claims to relief on the merits (A.R. pp. 270-288). The BIA ag ree d with the I J ’s conclu s i o ns and dismiss ed her appea l (A.R. pp. 191-194). Ny amay edeng a moved to reope n the proce eding , submitt ing evidenc e that the political situation had not im p ro v ed despite the opposition party ’s winning some positions in the g overnme nt by elec tion. The BI A found t h at n o n e of Ny amay edeng a’s evidence showed that she would be single d out for perse cution if she returne d to Z imbabwe, and it denied the motion. (A.R. pp. 7-8). I n her brief befor e this co u rt , Ny amay edeng a argues that her asylum application was not untimely due to extraordinary circ umstances because she had a pending application fo r chang e of -2-Nos. 12-3340/4146

Nyamaye denga v. H

older status which obviated the need to apply for asy lum. She also argues that the BI A err ed in concluding that she was not more likely to be perse cuted t h an h er sister-in-law and nephew beca use she contributed money

to the opposition party

while in this country

. We lack jurisdict ion to revie w whether extraordinary circ umstances exis ted which would

excuse Ny amay edeng a’s late filing of her asylum application. See Vincent v. Holder , 632 F.3d 351, 353 (6th Cir. 2011). Moreove r, we find that substantial evidenc e supports the ag ency ’s denial of her asy lum claim o n t h e merits. The fac ts found by the ag ency under this standard of revie w are conclusive unless a rea sonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry . Akhtar

v. Gonzales , 406 F.3d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 2005). Ny amay edeng a does not claim to have suffe red past perse cution, nor have any of her family members. Althoug h she claims that she would be si ng led
out for perse cution beca

use she provided financ ial supp o rt t o t h e opposition party while in this country , she has not provided any direc t, s p ec i fi c evidenc e supporting a rea sonable fea r of perse cution. See Klawitter v. INS , 970 F.2d 149, 153 ( 6th Cir. 1992). Be cause Ny amay edeng a failed to satisfy the burden of proof on her asy lum claim, she cannot satisfy the highe r standard for withholding of remova l. See Dieng v. Holder , 698 F.3d 866, 874 (6th Cir. 2012). She also has not established that it is more li kely than n ot that she wil l be tortured on return to Z imbabwe and is there fore ineligible for protec tion under the CAT. See Pilica v. Ashcroft , 388 F.3d 941, 951 ( 6th Cir. 2004). Ny amay edeng a also pe ti ti o n s f o r r eview of the denial of her motion to reope n the proce eding

. We revie w t he denial of a motion to reope n for an abuse of discretio n , wh i ch can be s hown i f t he denial is without rational explanation, inexpl icably depar ts from established policies, or rests on an -3-Nos. 12-3340/4146

Nyamaye denga v. H

older impermissible basis such as rac ial discrimination. Denk o v. INS , 351 F.3d 717, 723 (6th Cir. 2003). Ny amay edeng a has not e stablished abuse of discretion by the BI

A. The orde r deny

ing he r motion explains that, althoug h improvements in the political situation in Z imbabwe have not materia liz ed, Ny amay edeng a still has no evidenc e that she has a rea sonable fea r of perse cution on the basis of her political opinion. Acc ording ly , we de ny

Ny amay edeng a’s pe titions for r eview.

-4-