NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAIFUL ISLAM, No. 15-71214 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-271-936 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 9, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON,** District Judge. Saiful Islam petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. 1. We may grant the petition on due process grounds only if “(1) the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that [the petitioner] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case, and (2) [he] demonstrates prejudice, which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620-21 (9th Cir. 2011) (as amended) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Even if, as Islam alleges, the immigration judge (IJ) violated his due process rights by failing to “scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts,” Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 733-34 (9th Cir. 2002), Islam has failed to show prejudice. Islam has not made a plausible showing that, in a full and fair hearing, he would be able to show that his feared future persecution would be “committed by the government or forces the government is either unable or unwilling to control.” Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004).1 Because Islam has not shown that he could meet one of the requirements for asylum and withholding of removal, he cannot show a “plausible scenario[] in 1 Members of the Awami League party are not necessarily government actors for the purposes of the asylum analysis. Cf. Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1196 (9th Cir. 2007) (characterizing the Awami League as “an entity that the government fails to control,” and not as the government itself). Islam has also not persuasively shown that he could demonstrate the government’s inability or unwillingness to protect him from harm, considering that the police assisted him on several occasions. 2 which the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” See Tamayo- Tamayo v. Holder, 725 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 496 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)). 2. The record does not compel the conclusion that Islam is entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. See Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We grant the petition only if the evidence compels ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals