Opinion
No. 07-72428.
Submitted October 9, 2009 Pasadena, California.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
October 15, 2009.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A099-064-380.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Bizhi Liu petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's ("BIA") decision to uphold the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.
Liu's appellate brief does not mention the denial of his CAT claim, and so he has abandoned it. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).
Liu's untimely asylum application was properly denied because Liu failed to show an exception to the one-year bar was warranted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)(i)(B). Thomas v. Gonzales did not represent a change in law which materially affected his asylum eligibility, given that (1) twenty years' worth of BIA precedent and recent Ninth Circuit cases supported Thomas's finding that family could constitute a social group, and (2) the cases suggesting otherwise dealt with more attenuated family relationships than are present here. See 409 F.3d 1177, 1184-85, 1187 (9th Cir. 2005), vacated on other grounds by Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 186-87 (2006); Estrada-Posadas v. INS, 924 F.2d 916, 919 (9th Cir. 1991).
Liu was also properly denied withholding relief. Substantial evidence supports the holding that Liu failed to show the government was unable or unwilling to control his attackers, given that the record suggests the police attempted to investigate and that such investigation was feared by the attackers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2009).
The petition is DENIED.