Case ID: f-appx_122/html/0383-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samir Mahd MASOUD, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71474.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2005.
    
    Decided Feb. 23, 2005.
    David B. Gardner, Esq., Law Offices of David B. Gardner, Louis A. Gordon, Esq., Law Offices of Louis A. Gordon, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Beth S. Liebmann, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KOZINSKI, TROTT and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General. See Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
      
         This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. As the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded, the immigration judge properly denied petitioner’s motion to terminate proceedings, as petitioner had actual notice of the immigration proceedings and conceded proper service of notice at his initial hearing.

2. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that petitioner failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as required to demonstrate eligibility for asylum. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995). Petitioner thus necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for showing that he was entitled to withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ash croft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Additionally, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that petitioner did not demonstrate that it was more likely than not he would be tortured if he were to return to Jordan, as necessary for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2003).

DENIED. 
      
       ■pjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.