
    Ousman BALDEH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73635.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 2, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 16, 2010.
    Bakary Fansu Conteh, Esquire, Law Office Of Bakary Fansu Conteh, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    
      Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Deitz P. Lefort, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOSMAN, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Michael W. Mosman, District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ousman Baldeh, a native and citizen of the Gambia, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

1. Baldeh’s petition for review of his asylum claim is denied. The asylum application was untimely and the IJ’s determination that no changed circumstances existed to excuse the delay was supported by substantial evidence. See Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir.2008).

2. Baldeh’s petition for review of his withholding of removal claim is also denied. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Baldeh failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution, thereby falling short of the required showing of a “clear probability” of persecution. Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 739, 746 (9th Cir.2006).

3.Baldeh’s petition for review of his claim under the CAT is dismissed because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedy by raising this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

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