Bhojani v. Holder ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMAD RAHIM BHOJANI, No. 07-72167
Petitioner, Agency No. A98-527-745
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 12, 2010
Seattle, Washington
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
When the Board of Immigrations Appeals “conducts its own review of the
evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review ‘is limited to
the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’”
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Shrestha v. Holder, No. 08-74751, 2010 WL 10982, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan 5, 2010)
(quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). The BIA
treated petitioner’s testimony as credible but affirmed the finding that he failed to
establish past persecution, and despite his subjective fear of harm, that he had not
established an objectively well-founded fear of future persecution. Likewise, the
BIA held that he had failed to establish a claim for withholding of removal or
Convention Against Torture protection.
All these determinations were supported by substantial evidence on the
record as a whole. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (defining
substantial evidence review for asylum claims); Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2006) (applying the same standard to review of withholding
of removal and Convention Against Torture claims). All that petitioner claimed
was that while he was in Pakistan he was reprimanded by his father’s factory
manager for interrupting employees who were at their prayers. A reprimand for
claimed bad manners is not persecution or torture. Petitioner testified to no harms
he suffered. The record supported the BIA’s conclusion that, whatever danger
there might be to petitioner or his family if they tried to take their factory back
from the employees who extorted it from them, there was no evidence that
2
potential harm could not be avoided by relocating within Pakistan and there was no
evidence of collusion by the government in the extortion or that the authorities in
Pakistan would fail to protect petitioner.
The Board of Immigration Appeals holding that Bhojani is not eligible for
asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against
Torture, is therefore supported by substantial evidence.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3