Case ID: f-appx_309/html/0178-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Katija Bahar HAZEM, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74063.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2009.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esq., Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Joseph Kim, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Katija Bahar Hazem, a native of Afghanistan and citizen of Germany, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The discrimination and harassment Hazem suffered as an Afghani immigrant in Germany does not compel a finding of past persecution. See id. at 1016-18. Further, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Hazem has not established an objective fear of future persecution. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 1998).

Because Hazem has not met the standard for asylum, she necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

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