N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PATIENC E C HIM A, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-70158 Age n c y No. A096-434-713 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Patie nc e C him a , a

native and c itiz e n of Nige ria , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing he r m otion to re m a n d a nd dism issing he r a

p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c i sion de ny ing he r a pplic ation for a s y lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the 

# FIL ED SEP 03 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C .

§ 1252. W e re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Rahimzade h v . Holde r , 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd for a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a

m otion to re m an d, Malhi v . IN S , 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th C ir. 2003). W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. As a n initia l m atte r, the B IA did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing C him a ’ s m otion to re m and proc e e dings to the IJ for a djustm e nt of sta

tus be c a use the IJ la c ke d jurisdic tion to c onside r he r a djustm e nt a pplic ation. Se e 8 C . F.R . § 1208.2(c )(3)(i) (in a sy l um -only proc e e d ings, “ a ll pa

rtie s a re prohibite d from ra ising or c onside ring a

ny othe r issue s, inc luding but not lim ite d to issue s of a dm issibility , de porta

bility , e ligibility

for wa i ve rs, a

nd e ligibility for any

othe r form of re lie f” ); se e also N

ian v . Holde r , 683 F.3d 1227, 1228 (9th C ir. 2012) (a n a lie n m ay se e k a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd C AT prote c tion in a

n a sy lum only proc e e ding, but no othe

r form s of re lie f). C him a te stifie d she suffe re d m i stre atm e nt by witc h doc t ors in Nige ria

whic h she did not report to a

uthoritie s. The re c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the g ove rnm e nt of Nige ria wa s una ble or unwilling to prote c t C him a . Se e CastroPe re z v . Gonzale

s , 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th C ir. 2005) (re c ord did not c om pe l c onc lusion tha

t the gove rnm e nt wa s una

ble or unwilling to c ontrol pe rse c utors);

1 2 - 7 0 1 5 8 2Rahimzade h , 613 F.3d a t 920-22 (discu ssing va

rious m e a n s by whic h a pe titione r m ay fill the“ ga

p in proof” le ft by

the a b s e nc e of a

re port to thepolic e ). Thus, C him a ’ s a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l c la im s fa il. S

e e Rahimzade h , 613 F.3d at 923. Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of C AT re l ie f be c a use C him a

did not e sta

blish tha t it is more like ly

tha n not shewill be torture d by the Nige rian gove rnm e nt or with its c onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e . Se e Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 0 1 5 8 3