NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MINA SABER LABIB SOLIMAN, No. 19-70701 Petitioner, Agency No. A216-553-900 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 10, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: R. NELSON and BADE, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN,** District Judge. Mina Saber Labib Soliman, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) order denying his application for asylum and withholding of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. removal.1 Petitioner principally challenges the BIA and IJ’s (collectively, “Agency’s”) determination that he failed to demonstrate “a well-founded fear of persecution” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review an agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and “[t]he agency’s ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). We review de novo the Agency’s conclusions of law. See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The Attorney General is authorized to grant asylum to a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A “refugee” is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). “An applicant may establish a ‘well-founded 1 Petitioner does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he had waived his challenge to the IJ’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. As such, we address only Petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that issues not specifically raised in a party’s opening brief are waived). 2 fear of future persecution’ in two ways: by proving past persecution, or by demonstrating that he [or she] has a ‘subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable’ fear of future persecution.” Bringas-Rodriguez, 850 F.3d at 1062 (quoting Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir. 2000)). We agree with the Agency’s denial of asylum because Petitioner has not demonstrated either past persecution or an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. Persecution is an “extreme concept, marked by the infliction of suffering or harm . . . in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals