Dawood Dawood Abdalla v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAWOOD AHMED DAWOOD No. 19-70035
ABDALLA, et al.,
Agency Nos. A208-444-354
Petitioners, A208-444-355
A209-049-652
v. A209-049-654
A209-049-655
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, A209-049-656
A209-049-657
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 8, 2020**
Portland, Oregon
Before: WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BATTAGLIA,***
District Judge.
Dawood Ahmed Dawood Abdalla, his wife Jehad Hussein Mansour Abu
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3
Hmaid, and their five children (“Petitioners”), citizens of Jordan, petition for review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal
from the order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying an application for asylum and
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).1 We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition.
We review the administrative findings of fact for substantial evidence. Zetino
v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). “Under this standard, the petition
for review must be denied if the BIA’s determination is ‘supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Id.
(quoting INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)).
The Attorney General may grant asylum to a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(A); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a). A “refugee” is an individual who is
“unable or unwilling to return to” his or her country “because of persecution or a
well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). The applicant must establish either past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily-
1
The children are derivatives of their parents’ applications for asylum, see 8
U.S.C.§ 1158(b)(3)(A), (B); 8 C.F.R.§ 1208.21(a), (c), but there is no derivative
status for withholding of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16;
see also Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1069 n.2, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2000).
Page 3 of 3
protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1), (2). An application for asylum is
deemed to constitute an application for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A). See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(b); see also INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 420
n.13 (1984). The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than the well-
founded fear standard for asylum, so an applicant who fails to establish his or her
eligibility for asylum necessarily fails to establish eligibility for withholding of
removal. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006); Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the agency’s
determination that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for asylum and
withholding of removal. The evidence provided by Petitioners regarding past
persecution—not having been able to secure government jobs that afforded better
pay and benefits, being rejected from the Jordanian military, various and unrelated
physical altercations, and paying higher tariffs—simply do not rise to the extreme
level of persecution. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177–78 (9th Cir.
2004). Petitioners also failed to establish the requisite individualized risk of future
persecution in the country, as they only presented evidence that they were members
of a disfavored group in Jordan. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th
Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.