John Doe v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
John Doe No. 14-73987
Agency No. A088-702-157
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
John Doe, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioner did not
establish that his past harm rose to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder,
590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution because he failed to demonstrate it would be unreasonable for him to
relocate within Kenya to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B);
Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding BIA’s
determination that petitioner failed to establish it was unreasonable to relocate
within Mexico). Thus, petitioner’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because the record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not
that petitioner will be tortured at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of the
2 14-73987
government if returned to Kenya. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th
Cir. 2008).
Finally, we reject petitioner’s contention that the BIA erred in declining to
address the IJ’s nexus finding. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25
(1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on
issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED.
3 14-73987