Erdenejargal Natsag v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 09 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERDENEJARGAL NATSAG, et al., No. 09-70377
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A098-539-287
A098-539-288
v. A098-539-289
A098-539-290
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, A098-539-291
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 3, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Erdenejargal Natsag (“Natsag”), Altansukh Namsrai
(“Namsrai”), and their three children, natives and citizens of Mongolia, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the
*
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).
immigration judge’s denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of
removal. We deny the petition. Because the parties are familiar with the factual
and procedural history of the case, we will not recount it here.
We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Henriquez-Rivas v.
Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). The findings of fact are
“conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
“An applicant [for asylum] has the burden of establishing that (1) his
treatment rises to the level of persecution; (2) the persecution was on account of
one or more protected grounds; and (3) the persecution was committed by the
government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.”
Henriquez-Rivas, 707 F.3d at 1083 (internal quotation marks omitted). An outright
failure to respond to crime reports may constitute an unwillingness by the
government to protect a victim, Singh v. INS, 94 F.3d 1353, 1360 (9th Cir. 1996),
but an inability to solve a crime does not, see Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d
1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners did not
establish that the police were unable or unwilling to control Natsag’s brother, who
was allegedly responsible for violence against Petitioners. The record shows that
-2-
(1) the police investigated the attack on Namsrai for one month and seven days and
were unable to link the brother to the attack; (2) the police investigated the fire that
burned down Petitioners’ home; (3) Natsag did not contact the police further
despite her suspicion that her brother was responsible for the fire because she
believed it was “no use”; and (4) Natsag testified that her brother would be
imprisoned if she reported him. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Petitioners did not demonstrate a level of corruption in the
Mongolian government that corroborates Natsag’s belief that her brother has
power over the police. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th
Cir. 2005) (testimony as to belief that police would do nothing did not establish
that government was unable or unwilling to control persecutors).
Given our determination that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Petitioners failed to establish that the Mongolian government was
unable or unwilling to protect them, which resolves the petition, we need not—and
do not—reach any other issue raised by the parties.
Because Petitioners have failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they
necessarily fail to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. Pedro-Mateo v.
INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION DENIED.
-3-