Yohannes v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TEKLEZGI TEWELDE YOHANNES, No. 08-70534
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-114-722
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Teklezgi Tewelde Yohannes, a native of Ethiopia, 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”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings.
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and
grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.
Yohannes claims he suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of
future persecution on account of his ethnicity. He testified that he was deported
from Ethiopia to Eritrea; that he reentered Ethiopia, where he was forced to live in
hiding and could not work or attend school; and that Ethiopian police arrested him,
detained him for eight days, and beat him twice. He also testified that his brother-
in-law, a former police commissioner, was only able to negotiate his release from
detention upon the condition that he leave the country immediately.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Yohannes failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
removed to Ethiopia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68. Accordingly, we deny
the petition as to Yohannes’ CAT claim.
The agency erred when it rejected Yohannes’ asylum and withholding of
removal claims by focusing exclusively on his detention in determining that he did
not suffer past persecution on account of a protected ground. See Sagaydak v.
Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (agency may not ignore arguments
raised by a petitioner); Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
2 08-70534
“look[s] at the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether a finding of
persecution is compelled”); Mengstu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.
2009) (describing Ethiopian-Eritrean civil war as “ethnically tinged,” reversing
finding of no nexus for deportation of Ethiopian national of Eritrean descent, and
remanding for agency to determine whether program of denationalization and
deportation constituted persecution). Further, the agency’s additional grounds for
rejecting Yohannes’ well-founded fear of future persecution–i.e., that he was able
to live in Ethiopia without problems for a period of time and that the police
released him from detention to live in Ethiopia–are not supported. The agency also
erred by failing to consider Yohannes’ contention that there is a pattern and
practice of persecution of Ethiopians of Eritrean descent in Ethiopia. See
Sagaydak, 403 F.3d at 1040. Accordingly, we grant the petition for review with
respect to Yohannes’ asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 08-70534