Hajie Drammeh v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 542 F. App'x 573 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAJIE DRAMMEH, AKA Hadjie No. 09-71578
Drammeh,
Agency No. A095-598-546
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Hajie Drammeh, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection 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.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Drammeh failed to
establish that rebels targeted him on account of a protected ground enumerated in
the Immigration and Nationality Act, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). He did not
introduce any evidence that he was targeted for his political beliefs (including
political neutrality), imputed political beliefs, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. See
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992); Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d
1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000).
Drammeh is also ineligible for humanitarian asylum, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A), because he failed to demonstrate past persecution on
account of a protected ground. See id.; see also Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281,
1287 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Drammeh failed to show that it is more likely than not he will be tortured
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Sierra Leone.
See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2009). Drammeh did
not raise an argument that he was eligible for CAT relief under a theory of
“permanent and continuing harm,” before the BIA, see Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 802 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that the ineffective performance of
petitioner’s counsel in failing to introduce evidence of the petitioner’s genital
2
mutilation was prejudicial, in part, because petitioner could have argued for CAT
relief on the ground that genital mutilation is a permanent and continuing harm).
Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this argument. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3