Case ID: f-appx_135/html/0987-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bob Firoz ALI KHAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73017.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 24, 2005.
    Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., The Bhakhri Law Firm, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
    Bob Firoz Ah Khan, San Bruno, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to 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

Bob Firoz Ali Khan, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision in part and gave reasons of its own, we review both decisions. See Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence, see id., and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Khan did not demonstrate that the attacks committed on him by ethnic Fijians created a clear probability that he would be subject to persecution should he return to Fiji. See Lim v. INS 224 F.3d 929, 938-39 (9th Cir.2000).

Substantial evidence also supports the denial of Khan’s application for relief under CAT because he has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to Fiji. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This 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.