Case Name: Tadesse Ayleka AYELE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-19
Citations: 411 F. App'x 51
Docket Number: No. 09-73112
Parties: Tadesse Ayleka AYELE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 51–51

Head Matter:
Tadesse Ayleka AYELE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73112.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2011.
Filed Jan. 19, 2011.
Bakary Fansu Conteh, Esquire, Law Office of Bakary Fansu Conteh, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Keith Ian McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, District Judge.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Tadesse Ayleka Ayele petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") that dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge's denial of protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture ("CAT") and also denied his motion to remand for an adjustment of status.
Petitioner is not a member of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Party ("EPRP"), does not provide financial support for the EPRP, and his name does not appear on any EPRP list. Petitioner also has not suffered harm by or with the acquiescence of the Ethiopian government, nor has he received threats of such harm. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of CAT protection. See Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 983 (9th Cir.2007).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner's motion to remand, as Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for an adjustment of status or a waiver of inadmissibility. See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.2008).
The petition for review is DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.