Bahrami v. Holder , 397 F. App'x 386 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABDOLREZA BAHRAMI; HOMA No. 07-71556
BAHRAMI,
Agency Nos. A075-674-919
Petitioners, A075-674-920
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Abdolreza Bahrami and Homa Bahrami, natives of Iran and citizens of
France, petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of
*
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. P. 34(a)(2).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to remand. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003).
We review de novo claims of due process violations. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d
967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ unexhausted claim that they
qualify for adjustment of status. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
remand because the new evidence they submitted regarding riots in France did not
establish that they were prima facie eligible for asylum, withholding of removal or
CAT relief. See Malhi, 336 F.3d at 994. In particular, the evidence of the riots, in
conjunction with the prior evidence considered by the IJ, did not establish an
objective basis for petitioners’ fear that the government would be unable or
unwilling to control persecution by Iranian agents or skinheads, see Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005), and petitioners were never
“specifically targeted for persecution” by the rioters, see Lolong v. Gonzales, 484
F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Moreover, petitioners did not show that
2 07-71556
government officials would “aid or acquiesce” in any torture. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009).
Petitioners’ due process contention based upon translation error fails because
petitioners have not demonstrated prejudice from any errors. See Cheo v. INS, 162
F.3d 1227, 1230 (9th Cir. 1998) (concluding that translator error did not influence
the outcome where there was “no claim of additional evidence that was not heard
because of translator error”); see also Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773, 780 n.8
(9th Cir. 2000) (“petitioner can prove prejudice by showing either that he did not
understand the questions . . . or that his answers to the questions were not
translated correctly”).
Petitioners’ contention that their due process rights were violated because
the IJ was biased and abandoned his role as a neutral factfinder is belied by the
record.
Finally, petitioners’ contention that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was
improper lacks merit because the IJ did not set forth an adverse credibility finding.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 07-71556