Rahiman v. Holder , 361 F. App'x 800 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JAN 06 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SHAZIA SHARIFA RAHIMAN,                          No. 07-73154
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A079-262-309
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 15, 2009 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Shazia Sharifa Rahiman, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
    immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
    *
    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).
    PR/Research
    removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
    jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Hoxha v.
    Ashcroft, 
    319 F.3d 1179
    , 1182 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for
    review.
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum because the
    December 1999 incident and other acts of harassment Rahiman experienced did
    not rise to the level of persecution, see Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1244-45 (9th
    Cir. 2000), and she did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution,
    see Singh v. INS, 
    134 F.3d 962
    , 967-71 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing that “[m]ere
    generalized lawlessness and violence between diverse populations” without a
    particularized risk to the petitioner is generally insufficient to support a claim of
    asylum).
    Because Rahiman failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
    failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
    v. Gonzales, 
    453 F.3d 1182
    , 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because
    Rahiman failed to establish that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if
    returned to Fiji. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 
    378 F.3d 932
    , 938 (9th Cir. 2004).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    PR/Research                                 2                                     07-73154