NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAMEL TALAL KAMEL; et al., No. 17-72102 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-215-844 A206-215-845 v. A206-215-846 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 1, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: FERNANDEZ and LEE, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK,** District Judge. Petitioner Kamel Talal Kamel,1 a native and citizen of Iraq, timely petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable William Horsley Orrick, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 1 Kamel’s wife Yusra Saad Tawfeeq and their daughter Wid Kamil Talal Al Abayechi filed derivative applications. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A). appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum,2 withholding of removal,3 and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).4 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision. See Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th Cir. 2008). To be eligible for asylum based on a well-founded fear of future persecution, Kamel must demonstrate that his subjective fear of harm in Iraq is objectively reasonable. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009). He can satisfy the objective component by showing either that “there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that he will be ‘singled out individually for persecution’ if removed” or that “there is a systematic ‘pattern or practice’ of persecution against the group to which he belongs in his home country.” Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)). Kamel argues that his credible testimony and the evidence in the record establish that his fear of future persecution in Iraq is objectively reasonable. He asserts that he is likely to be individually targeted because of his moderate political 2 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). 3 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). 4 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18. 2 17-72102 views, his years spent living outside of Iraq, and his and his family’s connections to the United States. And he contends that moderate Sunni Muslims and individuals who collaborate with the United States face a pattern or practice of persecution in Iraq. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s contrary conclusion. Kamel was never threatened or harmed when he lived in Iraq despite his work in the Green Zone providing contracting services to the United States military. Nor was Kamel’s father ever targeted despite his company’s work with United States forces.5 Contrary to Kamel’s argument, neither the IJ nor the BIA ignored or misunderstood the country conditions evidence he submitted, which does ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals