Abdul Mirzada v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 21 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ABDUL GHAFFAR MIRZADA, AKA                      No.    19-70812
    Abdul Mirzada,
    Agency No. A072-083-392
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 14, 2020**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: WALLACE and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,*** District Judge.
    Abdul Ghaffar Mirzada (“Mirzada”) petitions for review of the Board of
    Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his application for deferral of removal
    under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).          We have jurisdiction under
    *
    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 Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review the BIA’s denial of CAT relief for substantial
    evidence—upholding its determination unless “compelled to conclude to the
    contrary” by the record. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 
    861 F.3d 1003
    , 1007 (9th Cir. 2017).
    We find the BIA’s denial is supported by substantial evidence and deny Mirzada’s
    petition for review.
    To be eligible for deferral of removal under CAT, Mirzada must show that it
    is “more likely than not” he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of
    Pakistan governmental officials if returned to that country. Azanor v. Ashcroft, 
    364 F.3d 1013
    , 1018 (9th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1), (7). He
    maintains, specifically, that CAT-relief is appropriate as both his renunciation of
    Islam and his tattoos—especially a tattoo of the word “Allah” across his chest—
    make him a target for “punishment and torture under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.”
    Pet’r Br. at 10, 19. Both the BIA and Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Mirzada’s
    application on the basis that he failed to establish non-practicing Muslims and/or
    individuals with tattoos were at a particular risk of torture in Pakistan, either directly
    at the hands of the government via prosecution under its blasphemy laws, or else
    extrajudicially at the instigation or with the acquiescence of public officials. See
    8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B) (evidence of risk must be “credible,” “persuasive, and
    refer[] to specific facts”).
    Nothing in the record compels a contrary conclusion. Mirzada has not
    2
    identified any instance of persons similarly situated to him—tattooed, non-
    practicing Muslims—being singled-out for torture in Pakistan. He conceded in
    testimony before the IJ that he had not been to Pakistan in decades, lacked personal
    knowledge of that country’s current culture, and knew of no instance where someone
    with tattoos was tortured in Pakistan for any reason whatsoever. Finally, he does
    not dispute the record evidence showing that tattoo parlors are common across major
    Pakistan cities; that tattooed individuals show their tattoos on social media and in
    public without apparent retribution; and that 3 to 10 million non-Muslims reside in
    Pakistan unmolested. See, e.g., Pakistanis Flock to Tattoo Parlours, BBC News
    (Feb. 17, 2012); Sparkle Ink Tattoos (Lahore), Ink Grail Tattoos (Islamabad),
    Devil’s Art (Karachi), Facebook (Sept. 14, 2018); Bureau of Democracy, Human
    Rights, and Labor, U.S. Dep’t of State, Pakistan 2017 International Religious
    Freedom Report (May 29, 2018).
    In sum, the record supports the BIA’s determination that Mirzada failed to
    establish non-Muslims and/or those with tattoos are at risk of torture in Pakistan.
    Because we deny Mirzada’s petition for review, we deny as moot his motion for a
    stay of removal pending appeal. The temporary stay of removal remains in effect
    until the issuance of the mandate or further order of the court. 9th Cir. G.O. 6.4(c).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW and MOTION FOR STAY OF REMOVAL
    PENDING APPEAL DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-70812

Filed Date: 5/21/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/21/2020