Maher Kutkut v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 550 F. App'x 392 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               DEC 18 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MAHER OMAR KUTKUT, AKA Maher                     No. 10-70376
    Omar Abdel Majid Kutkut, AKA Maher
    Omar Abdelmajid Kutkut,                          Agency No. A095-656-685
    Petitioner,
    MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted December 2, 2013
    Pasadena, California
    Before: SCHROEDER, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Maher Omar Kutkut petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for
    asylum, withholding, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    The asylum application was denied as untimely because it was filed fifteen
    months after the expiration of Petitioner’s legal status. Moreover, it was filed after
    removal proceedings had been instituted. Petitioner contends that the delay should
    nevertheless be considered reasonable, likening his situation to the situation in
    Taslimi v. Holder, 
    590 F.3d 981
     (9th Cir. 2010), where we held a delay of seven
    months was reasonable in light of petitioner’s uncertainties about the permanence
    of her religious conversion. Petitioner’s delay was twice as long, however, and
    prompted by no comparable change in the circumstances of his life affecting his
    eligibility for relief.
    Given the speculative nature of his concerns about how he would be treated
    on his return to Jordan, the evidence does not compel a conclusion that he had a
    well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 
    333 F.3d 1012
    , 1018 (9th
    Cir. 2003). The denial of withholding and relief under CAT must be upheld.
    In light of our disposition of the case in a nonprecedential memorandum,
    Petitioner’s pending motion is denied as moot.
    Petition DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-70376

Citation Numbers: 550 F. App'x 392

Judges: Clifton, Schroeder, Watford

Filed Date: 12/18/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023