NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 30 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HARI BAHADUR MAGAR, No. 20-70627 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-033-312 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 3, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Petitioner, Hari Bahadur Magar, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision, which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. petitioner’s asylum application. We deny the petition for review. We have jurisdiction to review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). When the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the IJ’s decision, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo. Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). We will reverse the BIA’s factual determinations only “if the evidence . . . presented was such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude” otherwise. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). A removable alien bears the burden of demonstrating asylum eligibility by showing that he is a refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a). A refugee is a person who is unwilling or unable to return to his home 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). To be eligible for withholding of removal, the petitioner must show a “clear probability” that his “life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account” of such category. 8 CFR § 1208.16(b); Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1985). 2 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s conclusions that Magar did not demonstrate that he suffered past persecution. Persecution is an “extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment that our society regards as offensive.” Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 672 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Threats “often do not effect significant or actual suffering or harm” to rise to the level of persecution. Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000)). We may find persecution where threats are “repeated, specific and ‘combined with confrontation or other mistreatment.’” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals