Case ID: f-appx_367/html/0773-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Almaz Araya GEBRU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73123.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
    Dan M. Winder, Esquire, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, NVL-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Almaz Araya Gebru, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the threats and harassment Gebru faced from the police did not rise to the level of persecution, see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000), and that the harm Gebru suffered was related to the enforcement of the guarantee she posted on her brother’s behalf and not on account of a protected ground, see Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2004). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Gebru did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because her suspicion that the police arrested her husband due to their interest in her is too speculative to provide an objective basis for her fear. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Gebru failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, she has also failed to establish her eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Gebru failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if returned to Ethiopia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.