Case Name: Liviu RIF, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-16
Citations: 214 F. App'x 412
Docket Number: No. 06-60167
Parties: Liviu RIF, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 412–414

Head Matter:
Liviu RIF, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-60167
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 16, 2007.
Malvern Clopton Burnett, Law Office of Malvern C. Burnett, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District, Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Alberto R. Gonzales, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Liviu Rif, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions this court to review the deci sion of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Rif argues that he demonstrated exceptional circumstances for his failure to timely file his application for asylum. He maintains that he demonstrated past persecution because of his political opinion and that he would likely be persecuted on that basis in Romania in the future. He also argues that he is entitled to relief under the CAT.
We have no jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination on the timeliness of Rifs asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). That portion of Rifs petition for review challenging the denial of asylum is dismissed.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Rif did not show that he was persecuted because of his political opinion or that he is likely to be persecuted because of his political opinion upon his removal to Romania. Rif thus has not shown that the BIA erred in denying his application for withholding of removal. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994).
We also find that substantial evidence supports the determination that Rif was not entitled to relief under the CAT because he did not establish that he would be tortured upon his return to Romania. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1), (a)(2); Bah v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 351-52 (5th Cir. 2003); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir.2002). Accordingly, Rifs petition for review, of the BIA's denial of his application for withholding of removal and relief under the CAT is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.