Elelta Estifanos Berhe v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELELTA ESTIFANOS BERHE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72066
Agency No. A095-684-236
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Elelta Estifanos Berhe, a native of Eritrea and citizen of Canada, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
OCT 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Rahimzadeh v.
Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Berhe does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that her asylum
application was untimely and that no exception to the one-year deadline applied.
See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in
opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Berhe failed to
establish the government of Canada was unwilling or unable to protect her from
her ex-husband. See Rahimzadeh, 613 F.3d at 920 (applicant bears the burden of
establishing that abuse was committed by the government or an agent the
government is unwilling or unable to control). Substantial evidence also supports
the BIA’s determination that Berhe failed to establish it is more likely than not she
would be persecuted in Canada. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). We reject Berhe’s
contention that the agency did not consider her statements. Thus, Berhe’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-72066 2

-- 2 of 2 --