Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c )(2) , Attorney Gene ral Er ic H. Holder , J r. has be en * substitut ed for

former Attorney Gene ral Micha el B . Mukasey as the re spondent in this case. The Honor able Jerome F arr is, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appea ls for the ** Ninth Circuit, sit ting by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0490n.06 No. 08-3916 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
T E NZING S HE R P A, ak a S h er p a T en z i n g; NGOWANG LAMA, Petitioners,
v. ERI C H . H OL DE R, JR., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, * Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ONPET I TI ONF OR REV I EW F RO M A DECI SI ON OF THE B O A RD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

B e fo re : G I L MA

N, CO OK , a

nd F ARRI S, Cir c uit

Judg e s. ** COOK, Circuit J udg e. Ng owangL ama a nd Tenzing Sherpa, husba nd and wife , petition for
re vie w o f t

he B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls ( “ B I A” )’ s o rd e r de nying the ir a pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum , wi thh old ing of re mov a l, an d re lie f und e r the Con ve nti on Ag a ins t Tor tur e (“ CA T” ). We d ism iss in pa rt fo r l a c k o f j ur isd ic tio n a

nd de ny the re ma ind e r o f t

he pe tit ion

on the me ri ts.
I . Ba ckg round
Th e pe tit ion e rs , e thn ic Ti be tans and c iti zen s of Ne pa l, e nte re d th e Un ite d St a te s a s to ur ist sNo. 08-3916

Sherpa v. H

older

-2- in 1996. After the Depa

rtment of Homeland Sec urity instit uted re moval proce eding s in November 2003, L ama f

iled her a

pplication for a sy lum and other re lief, namingSherpa as a der ivative b e n e f i c i ar y. L a m a

a s s e rt e d t h a ts h e f

e ar s p e r s e c u t i o nb y M a o i s t s d u e t o h e r T i b e t anan c e s t r

y, po lit ic a l be lie fs , a

nd B ud dh ist re lig ion . JA 2 . Sh e te sti fi e d th a t he r g ra nd pa rents immi g rate d to Ne pa l f ro m T ibe t to e sc a

pe op pr e ssi on

by the Chi ne se . Her fam ily su pp or te d th e Ne pa le se
mon arc hy , and he r fathe r se rv e d a s may or of the ir vil la g e . I n 20 02 , a c c or din g to L ama , M aois ts bombed a sc hool in her villag e, ca u s i n g no injuries but forcingher f ather to flee to Kathmandu wher e Maoists continue to extort money from him. J A 5–6.
Th e I mmi g ration J ud g e (“ I J”) de nie d L a ma ’s a sylum a pp lic a tio n, fi nd ingsh e ne g le c te d to timely file it. He also denied her request for withholdi ng of removal, concludingthat L ama did not suffe r past perse cution and that she failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future perse cution. Finally , the I J denied he r re quest for r elief un d er CAT on the g rounds that she fa iled to show a likelihood of torture if she returne d to Nepal. The BIA af firmed, a nd petitioners now appe al.
I I . A na ly sis
A. Asylum The g overnme nt a

rg ues that we lac k jurisdiction to review the de nial of L ama’ s application for a sy lum, and we a g ree . Wit h some exceptions, an alien se eking asylum must prove by clea r and convincingevidenc e that she f iled her a pplication within one y ear of the date of he r ar

rival in theNo. 08-3916

Sherpa v. H

older

-3- Un it ed S tat es. 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8( a )( 2) (B ). Th e B I A d e te rm ine d th a t th e pe tit ion e rs fa ile d to fi le within one y ear

or “w ithin a rea sonable pe riod of time following chang ed ci rc u m s t ances that
ma te ri a lly a ff

e c te d the ir e lig ibi lity fo r a sylum , o r e xtra or din ary c ir c ums tanc e s th a t e xcu se d th e ir late fi lin g .” JA 2; see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(2) (B ), (a )(2) (D). Be ca u s e L ama raises no constitutional claims or questions of law, § 1158 bars our revie w. See H

uang v. Muk

asey , 523 F.3d 640, 650–51 (6th Cir. 2008); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
. B. Wit hholding of

Removal Although w e lac k jurisdiction over L ama’ s asylum application, we may revie w the B I A’s denial of he r application for withholding of remova l. Almuhtaseb v. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 743, 749 (6th Cir. 2006). Where, as here , “the BIA does not summarily aff irm or adopt the I J ’s re asoning and provide[s] an explanat i o n for its decision, we revie w the B I A’s dec ision as the final ag ency deter mination.” Huang , 523 F.3d at 651 (interna l quotation marks omitted). Reg ardle ss of whethe r the petitioner re quests withholding of removal under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA”)
or re lief under the C AT, we will reve rse the BIA’s determination if we de em it “manife stly contra ry to law.” Almuhtaseb , 453 F. 3 d at 7 4 9 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( C)). We reviewthe B I A’s fac tu a l f in d in g s un d e r th e s u

b s ta n ti a l- e v id e n c e s ta

n d ar d , tr e a ti n g th e m a s “ c o n c lu s iv e u n le s s any
rea sonable a djudicator would be compelled to conclude the c ontrary .” Thap v. Mukase y , 544 F.3d 674, 676 (6th Cir. 2008) (interna l quotation marks omitted).No. 08-3916

Sherpa v. H

older

-4- I n order to preva il on her petition under the I NA or the CAT, L ama “ must show that there i s a ‘ c l e ar p r o b a b i l i t y’ t h a ts h e w o u l d

b e s u b j e c tt o p e r s e c u t i o n . . . o r t o t o rtu r e , ” r e s p e c t i v e l y. Huang , 5 2 3 F. 3 d

at 6 5 1 (q u o t i n g Koulji nski v. Keisler , 50 5 F .3 d 53 4, 54 4 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) ). Th e ri sk of per secution must relate to her ra ce, relig ion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g roup, or political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3)(A)
. The BIA found L ama c redible, but de termined t h a t s h e f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e p a s tp e r s e c u t i o no r a l i k e l i h o o d

o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o no r

t o rtu r e . JA 2. At the time the Maoists al l ege dly bombed the school, pe titioners alrea dy resided in the U nited States. L ama admitted that she experienc ed no mistreatment while living in Nepal. She a rg ues that harm to her

family constitutes perse cution to herse lf “if the perse cutor’s motivation in harming the fa mil y me mbe r i s to p un ish

or ha rm [he r], ” Ap pe lla

nt’ s B r. 5 ( c iti ngOf

fi c e of I nte rn a tio na l A ff

a ir s, Asylum Divisi on Memorandum) —but no one phy sically harme d any one in L ama’ s family , and the I J conclude d that L ama failed to pr ovide rea sonably available evidenc e corr oborating her claims that Maoists threatene d her f

amily
. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (4). The I J further found that L ama was not politically active and had not “ distinguished her self in a wa y that would drawattention to herself by the Ma ois ts. ” JA 14 . M or e ov e r, ne ws art ic le s su g g e ste d th a t the Ne pa le se g ov e rnme nt a nd Ma ois t g ue ri lla s e nte re d in to a ce a se -f ir e . L a ma of

fe rs tw o 200 8 re po rt s in dic a tin g that vi ole nc e c on tin ue s, bu t w e are lim ite d to the a dmi nis tr a tiv e re c or d. 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (b )( 4) (A ); Lin v. Holder , 565 F.3d 9 7 1 , 9 7 8

– 7 9 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 )
. S u b s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e s u

p p o rt s t h e B IA ’ s d e c i s i o n ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e B IA did not abuse its discretion in de ny ing petitioners’ application for withholding of re moval or re lief under the CAT.No. 08-3916

Sherpa v. H

older

-5- I I I . Conclusion
For these re asons, we dismiss in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny the re mainder of

the pe tit ion on the me ri ts.