Case ID: f-appx_87/html/0661-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohamed GOUADJELIA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73712.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 6, 2004.
    
    Decided Feb. 10, 2004.
    
      Robert B. Jobe, Law Office of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Allen W. Hausman, Attorney, Daniel E. Goldman, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge’s determination that the harassment Gouadjelia suffered at the hands of Muslim extremists did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2003). The evidence does not compel the conclusion that the mistreatment he suffered at the hands of police officers was “on account of’ a protected statutory ground. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2001). Furthermore, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Gouadjelia could not avoid persecution by relocating to another part of Algeria or that it would be unreasonable to expect him to relocate. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Gouadjelia failed to establish statutory eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to satisfy the higher standard for withholding of deportation. See Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.