Zohair Parekh v. Jefferson Sessions

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 12 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZOHAIR AMANULLAH PAREKH, aka No. 14-71827
Martin M. Maricris,
Agency No. A096-448-460
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 8, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Zohair Amanullah Parekh seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") decision dismissing his appeal of the immigration
judge’s ("IJ") denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny the petition in part, and we
dismiss it in part.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner is
ineligible for asylum.1 See, Hanna v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 2007)
("The BIA’s decision that an alien has not established eligibility for asylum is
reviewed for substantial evidence."). The record does not compel the conclusion
that there is a "pattern or practice" of persecution of Shiite Muslims in Pakistan.
Although discrimination is widespread, and some Shiite Muslims are persecuted,
documents in the record state that "[m]ost of Pakistan’s Sunni and Shia Muslims
live peacefully together." See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir.
2009) ("Although the record contains evidence of widespread anti-Chinese and
anti-Christian discrimination that affects a very large number of individuals, and
although it is clear that a certain portion of those individuals suffer treatment that
rises to the level of persecution, the record does not establish that the situation in
1
Because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination of ineligibility, we do not reach the BIA’s alternative holding that
Petitioner’s application for asylum was untimely.
2
Indonesia is similar to the patterns or practices of persecution described in our
prior case law.").
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, assuming that
Petitioner is a member of a "disfavored group," he has not shown an individualized
fear of persecution. The murder of Petitioner’s grandfather in 1999, by unknown
assailants, does not give rise to an individualized fear of future persecution.
Petitioner’s parents and siblings remain in Karachi, where they practice their
religion and have not been harmed. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094
(9th Cir. 2010) ("[A] petitioner’s fear of future persecution is weakened, even
undercut, when similarly-situated family members living in the petitioner’s home
country are not harmed." (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)).
2. Because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing eligibility for
asylum, he necessarily failed to satisfy the higher standard for withholding of
removal. Yan Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 926 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011).
3. We lack jurisdiction over Petitioner’s challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT
relief, because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The BIA
held—and Petitioner has not challenged on appeal—that Petitioner waived the
issue of CAT relief because he did not "meaningfully challenge" the IJ’s denial.
See Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 972 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that a
3
"general challenge to the IJ’s decision" concerning an issue is insufficient to
exhaust the issue (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Petition DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
4