Ahmed Barakat v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AHMED ZAKY HUSSEIN BARAKAT, No. 10-72496
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-305-078
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ahmed Zaky Hussein Barakat, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief 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.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings and review de novo legal questions, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
In concluding that Barakat failed to show he was targeted on account of a
political opinion, the BIA found that Barakat was targeted because of personal
vendetta not because “he opposed or exposed any government corruption.”
(emphasis in the original). The record does not compel a contrary result. See
Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘[T]he salient question’
in determining whether the act of whistleblowing is political is whether it was
‘directed toward a governing institution, or only against individuals whose
corruption was aberrational.’”); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S 478, 481
(1992) (to reverse agency decision the evidence must compel a different
conclusion). Accordingly, Barakat’s asylum claim fails.
Because Barakat has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Barakat
has not demonstrated he was tortured in Egypt or that it is more likely than not he
will be tortured if he returns to Egypt. See Mamouzian v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1129,
2 10-72496
1139 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Eneh v. Holder, 601 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 2010)
(without intention to torture, even “inadequate access to medicine” in “deplorable
prison conditions” is insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief). Therefore,
Barakat’s CAT claim also fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-72496