Mohamed Sahib v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 599 F. App'x 704 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMED SAJEER MEERAN SAHIB, No. 11-73982
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-900-358
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 3, 2015
Pasadena California
Before: PREGERSON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and WHALEY,** Senior
District Judge.
Mohamed Sajeer Meeran Sahib, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an
immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sahib was ineligible
for asylum and withholding of removal because he engaged in the persecution of
others when he assisted the Sri Lankan army by providing translation services. An
alien seeking asylum bears the burden of establishing that he is a “refugee” under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(i). By statute, the definition of refugee excludes “any person who
ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person
on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion.” INA § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). The same
persecutor bar also applies to aliens seeking withholding of removal. INA
241(b)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i). Substantial evidence in the record
indicates that Sahib assisted in the persecution of others because of his personal
involvement and his purposeful assistance to the army in carrying out the
interrogations. Without Sahib’s translation services the interrogations could not
have proceeded. See Miranda Alvarado v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006).
Thus, Sahib’s claim for asylum and withholding of removal fails because
substantial evidence supports the application of the persecutor bar.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Sahib’s CAT claim
2
because he has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured by the
government of Sri Lanka or with its consent or acquiescence. Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, Sahib’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3