NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OVIMER MONESTINE, No. 20-72155 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-386-613 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Ovimer Monestine, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“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 the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Monestine failed to establish the harm he experienced was on account of a protected ground, including an imputed political opinion. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2008) (past persecution based on anti-gang political opinion not established where petitioner’s evidence failed to show that he was ideologically opposed to the gang and instead demonstrated he was victimized for economic and personal reasons), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Monestine failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable, in part, because similarly- situated family members remained in petitioner’s home country unharmed). Thus, Monestine’s asylum, humanitarian asylum, and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 2 20-72155 Monestine failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Haiti. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 20-72155 20-72155 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Ovimer Monestine v. Merrick Garland 17 September 2021 Agency Unpublished ee205ebd898addfff7544f2f9abb4b46630bc0b1
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals