MEMORANDUM **
Adam Akhmedovich Azimov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Azimovs contention that the late filing of his asylum application should be excused, because he did not challenge the IJs determination of that issue in his appeal to the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the BIAs conclusion that Azimov failed to establish either past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution in Russia. See, e.g., Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[P]ersecution is an extreme concept [that] does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicants claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident․”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Thus, Azimovs claim for withholding of removal fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of CAT protection because Azimov failed to show that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Russia. Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.