Damdin Borjgin v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 382 F. App'x 628 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAMDIN PUREVSUREN BORJGIN, No. 09-71179
a.k.a. Chimmesddorj Tsendsuren,
Agency No. A095-740-394
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Damdin Purevsuren Borjgin, a native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Borjgin did
demonstrate past persecution because the 2007 threats relating to his refusal to
participate in the money laundering scheme did not rise to the level of persecution.
See id. at 936. We reject Borjgin’s contention that the IJ disregarded evidence of
past persecution because Borjgin testified that he did not have any problems before
he left Mongolia in 1999 and he has not overcome the presumption that the IJ did
review the relevant evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96
(9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that
Borjgin did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2006); see also
Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002) (when a petitioner
has not established past persecution, the agency may “rely on all relevant evidence
in the record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the
petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”).
2 09-71179
Because Borjgin failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, he
necessarily failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Borjgin failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Mongolia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.
2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-71179