Husein v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 777 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZIAD A. HUSEIN, No. 06-72577
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-606-807
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ziad A. Husein, a native of Palestine and citizen of Jordan, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NED/Research
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992), and we deny the
petition for review.
Even if Husein’s asylum application was timely, substantial evidence
supports the IJ’s finding that the threats Husein received from Muslim
fundamentalists did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482,
1486 (9th Cir. 1997) (persecutors’ actions must be motivated by imputed political
opinion). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.
Because Husein failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that
he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because
Husein failed to establish it was more likely than not he would be tortured if he
returned to Jordan. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
NED/Research 2 06-72577