FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 05 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STETCO BOGDAN-ADRIAN, No. 14-71858 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-363-308 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, MEMORANDUM * ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 12, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and JAMES V. SELNA, *** District Judge. Petitioner Stetco Bogdan-Adrian (“Bogdan-Adrian”), a citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R App. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. 1 his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the BIA’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). A finding is not supported by substantial evidence when “‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary’ based on the evidence in the record.” Id. (quoting Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014)); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings.1 Therefore, we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that Bogdan-Adrian failed to demonstrate persecution by the Romanian government or by private actors the government is unable or unwilling to control. See, e.g., Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir. 2010) (declining to conclude that the Italian government was unable or unwilling to control the petitioner’s assailants, where the police investigated the incidents, but the assailants’ identities were speculative); Nahrvani 1 Bogdan-Adrian also challenges the BIA and IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Because the BIA upheld the IJ’s order only on the merits, see Certified Administrative Record (“C.A.R.”) at 41–43, we do not address this argument. The BIA reviewed Bogdan-Adrian’s eligibility for asylum presuming the truth of his testimony. 2 v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that the applicant had not demonstrated that the German government was unable or unwilling to control the perpetrators, where he did not give the police the names of any suspects, and his wife testified that the police investigated the complaints). Despite Bogdan- Adrian’s assertion that the police could identify the men involved in the 2006 incident, there is no evidence that he filed a police report or otherwise asked the police to investigate. Moreover, Bogdan-Adrian testified that he did not actually know who attacked him in the 2007 incident and that the police “made some investigations,” but no ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals