Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0856-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ameen Ali AL TAIFI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72039.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 9, 2011.
    Elias Z. Shamieh, Law Offices of Elias Z. Shamieh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Fatouros, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, IKUTA, and N.R. 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

Ameen Ali Al Taifi, a native and citizen of Yemen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his 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, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the threat Al Taifi received did not amount to persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir.2000) (unfulfilled threats, without more, do not generally constitute persecution); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that A1 Taifi failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution because he has not shown it would be unreasonable to internally relocate to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1267 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Al Taifi’s asylum claim fails.

Because Al Taifi failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Al Taifi did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Yemeni government. See Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984, 988-89 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, his CAT claim fails.

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