NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAWOOD AHMED DAWOOD No. 19-70035 ABDALLA, et al., Agency Nos. A208-444-354 Petitioners, A208-444-355 A209-049-652 v. A209-049-654 A209-049-655 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, A209-049-656 A209-049-657 Respondent. MEMORANDUM* On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 8, 2020** Portland, Oregon Before: WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BATTAGLIA,*** District Judge. Dawood Ahmed Dawood Abdalla, his wife Jehad Hussein Mansour Abu * 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). *** The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. Page 2 of 3 Hmaid, and their five children (“Petitioners”), citizens of Jordan, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from the order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying an application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition. We review the administrative findings of fact for substantial evidence. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). “Under this standard, the petition for review must be denied if the BIA’s determination is ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Id. (quoting INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)). The Attorney General may grant asylum to a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a). A “refugee” is an individual 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); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). The applicant must establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily- 1 The children are derivatives of their parents’ applications for asylum, see 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(b)(3)(A), (B); 8 C.F.R.§ 1208.21(a), (c), but there is no derivative status for withholding of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16; see also Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1069 n.2, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2000). Page 3 of 3 protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1), (2). An application for asylum is deemed to constitute an application for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(b); see also INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 420 n.13 (1984). The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than the well- founded fear standard for asylum, so an applicant who fails to establish his or her eligibility for asylum necessarily fails to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals