Teoman Gurson v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 494 F. App'x 723 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          AUG 14 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    TEOMAN GURSON and GULSON                         No. 08-71279            U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    GURSON,
    Agency Nos.         A098-263-632
    Petitioners,                                           A098-263-633
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted August 8, 2012 **
    San Francisco, California
    Before: CALLAHAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior
    District Judge.***
    Gulsun and Teoman Gurson petition for review of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their application for asylum and 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).
    ***
    The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
    District Court for Alaska, sitting by designation.
    removal. The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding that the
    Gursons failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their
    religious beliefs. The evidence in the record does not compel a finding to the
    contrary, and thus we deny the petition.1
    1.     The BIA’s findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator
    would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v.
    Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481 (1992). “[P]ersecution is an extreme concept.”
    Singh v. INS, 
    134 F.3d 962
    , 967 (9th Cir. 1998). To establish past persecution the
    Gursons must show: (1) incidents that rise to the level of persecution, (2) that the
    persecution is based on their religious beliefs, and (3) that the government was
    unable or unwilling to control the private actors responsible for the persecution.
    Baballah v. Ashcroft, 
    367 F.3d 1067
    , 1074 (9th Cir. 2004).
    Although 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b) provides that asylum may be granted based on
    persecution on the basis of religious views, the IJ reasonably determined that the
    alleged incidents—being beaten for holding hands twenty years ago, being warned
    to wear a head scarf and leggings or risk having hydrochloric acid thrown on them,
    having the chimney blocked by the building manager—are more akin to
    1
    Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history
    we do not restate them here except as necessary to explain our decision.
    2
    discrimination rather than persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 
    47 F.3d 336
    , 339-40
    (9th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the Gursons’ contention that the events were due to
    their religious beliefs is based on speculation, and they have not shown that the
    government would be unable or unwilling to protect them. The Gursons did not
    report most of the incidents and the Country Reports indicate the government of
    Turkey is committed to ensuring religious freedom.
    Because the Gursons failed to establish past persecution and offered no
    separate grounds for fearing religious persecution, they have failed to demonstrate
    a reasonable fear of future persecution. See 
    Singh, 134 F.3d at 967
    n.8 (holding a
    fear of continuation of the same treatment necessarily ties petitioner’s fear of future
    persecution to whether he experienced past persecution). Therefore, the Gursons
    have failed to make the compelling factual showing necessary for a grant of relief.
    2.     In order to qualify for withholding of removal, petitioners must
    demonstrate a “clear probability of persecution.” 
    Id. at 971 (citation
    omitted). If
    “the evidence does not compel a finding of persecution or a well-founded fear
    thereof, it necessarily does not compel a finding that Petitioner[s] [have] shown a
    ‘clear probability’ of persecution if [they] were to return to [Turkey].” 
    Id. Thus, the Gursons
    do not qualify for withholding of removal.
    The petition for review is DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-71279

Citation Numbers: 494 F. App'x 723

Judges: Callahan, Watford, Singleton

Filed Date: 8/14/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024