Satya Chum v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 478 F. App'x 458 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 07 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATYA CHUM, No. 11-71441
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-609-697
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 31, 2012 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, Senior District
Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Satya Chum, a citizen and native of Cambodia, seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) rejection of his asylum, withholding of removal,
and Convention Against Torture relief claims.
The BIA did not err in denying asylum because Chum’s application was
time-barred. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The circumstances to which Chum points,
such as the dissolution of his marriage and maintenance of lawful status, do not
excuse his untimeliness because he did not file within a “reasonable period” after
these circumstances ended. 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5)(iv); see Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1057–58 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chum had not
shown he would more likely than not be subject to persecution or torture upon his
return to Cambodia. In the past he had faced only one unfulfilled threat without
accompanying harassment, economic harm, or menacing follow-ups. See Lim v.
I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000). The record demonstrates that his
involvement in the Sam Rainsy Party was far less than that of individuals who
were targeted for persecution or torture.
This court lacks jurisdiction to review denials of voluntary departure.
8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2004).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2