Ameen Al Taifi v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 446 F. App'x 856 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 9 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMEEN ALI AL TAIFI, No. 08-72039
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-065-543
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: LEAVY, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ameen Ali Al Taifi, a native and citizen of Yemen, 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,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and
we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the threat Al Taifi
received did not amount to persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th
Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats, without more, do not generally constitute
persecution); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial
evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Al Taifi failed to demonstrate a well-
founded fear of future persecution because he has not shown it would be
unreasonable to internally relocate to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1267 (9th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, Al Taifi’s asylum claim fails.
Because Al Taifi failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Al Taifi did not
establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or
2 08-72039
acquiescence of the Yemeni government. See Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984,
988-89 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-72039