Diana Chochua v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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). Thus, we deny Chochua’s
request for oral argument.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIANA CHOCHUA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71923
Agency No. A088-487-407
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Diana Chochua, a native and citizen of Georgia, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-71923 2
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, and we review de novo the agency’s legal
determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly found Chochua failed to establish extraordinary
circumstances to excuse the one-year asylum filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(5); Mutuku v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1210, 1212 (9th Cir. 2010) (hope that
conditions would improve in home country did not constitute an extraordinary
circumstance). Thus, her asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Chochua’s experiences
in Georgia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929,
936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[t]hreats standing alone, . . . constitute past persecution in
only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to
cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (internal quotation marks omitted);
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (record did not compel
finding of past persecution where petitioner was “teased, bothered, discriminated
against and harassed” but did not suffer any significant physical harm or violence).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Chochua failed to

-- 2 of 3 --

11-71923 3
establish it is more likely than not she will be persecuted if returned. See
Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (crediting petitioner’s subjective fear but concluding it
was “too speculative”). Thus, her withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
because Chochua failed to establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured in
Georgia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --