NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 9 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IMDAD ULLAH, No. 19-70087 Petitioner, Agency No. A216-273-533 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 9, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: BERZON, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Imdad Ullah, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Ullah fears harm from the Taliban because he worked for the Pakistani government * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. distributing polio vaccines. We review the agency’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition for review as to Ullah’s CAT claim, grant the petition as to Ullah’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal, and remand. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Ullah’s CAT claim. The record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed to Pakistan. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033–34 (9th Cir. 2014). Ullah contends that because he was “threatened with death by” the Taliban, “a group fully capable of carrying its threats out,” it is “more likely than not that he would be tortured in the future.” But “[a] government does not acquiesce in the torture of its citizens merely because it is aware of torture but powerless to stop it.” Id. at 1034 (alteration in original) (quoting Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405, 413 (8th Cir. 2007)). And the record supports the agency’s finding that, rather than inflicting or acquiescing in any torture, the Pakistani government endeavored to protect polio workers from violence committed by the Taliban by enhancing security and investigation measures. 2. With respect to Ullah’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, 2 substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s conclusion that Ullah failed to establish past persecution. First, the BIA erred in concluding that the harm suffered by Ullah in Pakistan did not rise to the level of past persecution. Ullah received two “specific and menacing” death threats from the Taliban, Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th Cir. 2004), one of which was left at his family’s home and caused him to flee that same day. See Mendoza-Pablo v. Holder, 667 F.3d 1308, 1314 (9th Cir. 2012). After Ullah fled, the Taliban beat his father and brother to extract information about Ullah’s whereabouts and vandalized their family home. See Kaur …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals