Case ID: f-appx_649/html/0508-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maung HAY MAN NYEE NYEE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70101.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 26, 2016.
    
    Filed May 2, 2016.
    Maung Hay Man Nyee Nyee, Daly City, CA, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Eric Warren Mar-steller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maung Hay Man Nyee Nyee’s motion to proceed without filing a reply brief is granted.

Hay Man Nyee Nyee, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and review de novo questions of law, Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 665 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hay Man Nyee Nyee failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in light of his return trips to Burma for which he did not provide compelling reasons. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 524 (9th Cir.2006); Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir.2008) (“It is well established in this court that an alien’s history of willingly returning to his or her home country militates against a finding of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.”). We reject his contentions that the agency failed to consider evidence, or that the IJ improperly relied on this court’s decision in Loho v. Mukasey.

Because Hay Man Nyee Nyee failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Kumar, 439 F.3d at 525.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Hay Man Nyee Nyee’s CAT claim. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

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