Case Name: Monmoh DUKURAY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-27
Citations: 475 F. App'x 200
Docket Number: No. 09-73642
Parties: Monmoh DUKURAY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 200–201

Head Matter:
Monmoh DUKURAY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73642.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 27, 2012.
Timothy M. Greene, General, Law Offices of Timothy M. Greene, Puyallup, WA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christina J. Martin, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
Monmoh Dukuray, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Dukuray established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, his asylum claim, including his claim for humanitarian asylum, fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that, even if credible, and even if he established past persecution, Duku-ray failed to establish eligibility for relief due to changed country conditions. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1286 (evidence of fundamental changes in Sierra Leone rebutted the presumption of a fear of future persecution).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.