Maung Hay Man Nyee Nyee v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAUNG HAY MAN NYEE NYEE, No. 14-70101
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-318-654
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Maung Hay Man Nyee Nyee’s motion to proceed without filing a reply brief
is granted.
Hay Man Nyee Nyee, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
*
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).
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and
review de novo questions of law, Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 665 F.3d 1105,
1107 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hay Man
Nyee Nyee failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution in light of his return trips to Burma for which he did not provide
compelling reasons. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 2006);
Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (“It is well established in
this court that an alien’s history of willingly returning to his or her home country
militates against a finding of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution.”). We reject his contentions that the agency failed to consider
evidence, or that the IJ improperly relied on this court’s decision in Loho v.
Mukasey.
Because Hay Man Nyee Nyee failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Kumar, 439 F.3d at 525.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Hay Man Nyee
Nyee’s CAT claim. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-70101