Case ID: f-appx_324/html/0637-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Salib Atef Mokhtar MOUNES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72135.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2009.
    
    Filed April 28, 2009.
    Natalia Nekrasova, Law Offices of Roni P. Deutsch, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Secuiity Los Angeles, CA, Melody K. Eaton, Trial, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevi'e, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Emily Anne Radford, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Salib Atef Mokhtar Mounes, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that, even assuming Mounes’s testimony is deemed credible, Mounes did not establish past persecution on account of a statutorily enumerated ground. See Chanco v. INS, 82 F.3d 298, 302 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that criminal prosecution does not amount to political persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because there were material inconsistencies between Mounes’s testimony and asylum application regarding the events surrounding his release from prison. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001); see also Kohli v. Gon zales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2007). Mounes has therefore failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Mounes has not demonstrated that he is more likely than not to be tortured if returned to Egypt. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

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