
    Maher Omar KUTKUT, aka Maher Omar Abdel Majid Kutkut, aka Maher Omar Abdelmajid Kutkut, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70376.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 2, 2013.
    Filed Dec. 18, 2013.
    Rhonda P. Deutsch, Law Office of Roni P. Deutsch, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial, Mona Maria Yousif, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Maher Omar Kutkut petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

The asylum application was denied as untimely because it was filed fifteen months after the expiration of Petitioner’s legal status. Moreover, it was filed after removal proceedings had been instituted. Petitioner contends that the delay should nevertheless be considered reasonable, likening his situation to the situation in Taslimi v. Holder, 590 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.2010), where we held a delay of seven months was reasonable in light of petitioner’s uncertainties about the permanence of her religious conversion. Petitioner’s delay was twice as long, however, and prompted by no comparable change in the circumstances of his life affecting his eligibility for relief.

Given the speculative nature of his concerns about how he would be treated on his return to Jordan, the evidence does not compel a conclusion that he had a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). The denial of withholding and relief under CAT must be upheld.

In light of our disposition of the case in a nonprecedential memorandum, Petitioner’s pending motion is denied as moot.

Petition DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     