Case Name: Abubakar KAMARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-24
Citations: 472 F. App'x 762
Docket Number: No. 09-70870
Parties: Abubakar KAMARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 762–763

Head Matter:
Abubakar KAMARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70870.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 24, 2012.
Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Susan Bennett Green, Trial, Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, DOJ-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: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Abubakar Kamara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir.2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Kamara's contention that he is eligible for humanitarian asylum because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that, even if Kamara's asylum application was timely, and even if Kamara established past persecution, the government rebutted the presumption that Kamara has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Sierra Leone. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1285-87 (evidence of fundamental changes in Sierra Leone rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution). Accordingly, Kamara's asylum claim fails.
Because Kamara failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Kamara failed to show that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Sierra Leone. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.