Maged Al Qadasi v. Matthew Whitaker ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAGED HASHEM ABDULLAH AL No. 15-72502
QADASI,
Agency No. A200-268-293
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Maged Hashem Abdullah Al Qadasi, a native and citizen of Yemen,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harm Al Qadasi
suffered in Yemen did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel the
conclusion that petitioner’s past harm constituted persecution); Lim v. INS, 224
F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecution is an “extreme concept” that includes
the “infliction of suffering or harm”). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that Al Qadasi did not establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution in Yemen on account of his political opinion or other protected ground.
See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[a]n applicant’s claim of
persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated
family members continue to live in the country without incident”). Thus, his
asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Al Qadasi failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d
at 1190.
2 15-72502
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Al Qadasi’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Yemen. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).
Finally, we reject Al Qadasi’s contentions that the IJ did not consider all of
his evidence or that the BIA failed to address legal errors.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72502