NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 11a0368n.06 No. 09-4276 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

SOHA FAR OUK F AHMY ABDELHALI M, P etitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOL DER, JR., Att orney Ge neral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F ROM THE BOARD OF IMMIG RATION AP P EALS

Before: G IBBO NS and WHITE , Circuit Judges; and OL IVER, Chief District Judge. * JULIA SMITH GI B BONS, Circuit Ju dge. Petitioner Soha Abdelhalim (“Abdelhalim”) appea ls a final order of the Boa rd of I mmigration Appea ls (“B I A”) , aff irming the decision of an I mmigration J udg e (“ I J ”), de ny ing he r reque st f or asy lum, withholding of remova l, a nd protec tion under Article I I Iof the United N ations Convention Aga inst Torture (“ CAT”). F o r t h e f o l l o w i n g

rea sons, we deny

the petition for re view. I

. Abdelhalim was born in Kuwait but is a ci t i z en o f Eg y pt. Her pare nts live in Amman, J ordan. After attending medical school in Eg y pt, Abdelhalim first came to the United S tates on a visitor’s visa

in 1996, but she chang ed to a student visa whe n she starte d study ing f or the Medica l

The Honora

ble Solomo n Ol i ver, J r., Chief United States District J udg e for the Norther n * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation.No. 09-4276

Abdelhalim v. Holde r L i censing Ex am (“ML E”). Abdelhalim passed the ML E, but she depar ted for J ordan in October , 1998, to assist her pare nts with family matters. In J ordan, she was preve nted from working or even obtaining a driver’ s license, so she returne d to the United States—ag ain on a visitor’s visa—to “start ap p l y i n g for hospitals, and [t o] try to g et into a training prog ram.” But befor e she g ot in t o an y prog rams, she met her ex-husband. They wer e marrie d in J uly 1999, and Abdelhalim g ave birth to

a son, Anasa

r, in October 20 0 0

. Beca use her husband was in a residenc y prog ram, he had a J -1 student visa, and she ha d a J-2 dependent’ s visa. The marria g e was troub l ed. Abdelhalim repor ts that her ex-husband abused both her and their son verba lly and phy sically

. She eventua lly contac ted the police, which—had she not dropped her case —would have cause d h er ex-husband to fac e nine months in jail for abuse. The two divorce d in 2004, and Abdelhalim was left with the child but no support or leg al ability to find work. Eventually , her ex -husband pa id her $400 a mont h in child support, but it was not enoug h. I n the summer of 2007, Abdelhalim gave her e x -husband c ustody of their son be cause in her c urre nt job

as a dental assistant she bare ly made enoug h to support herse lf, let alone a child. Despite not having custody , howeve r, she wa s able to visit her son whene ver she wanted. Following her divorce , Abdelhalim lost the rig ht to rema in in the United States. She applied for asy lum on October 1, 2004, and the Depa rtment of Homeland Security (“D HS”) denied her 1

The re g ulations require an alien to file for asy lum “within 1 y ear of the da te of the a lien’s 1 arr ival in the United States.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2)( i)(A)

. Howeve r, the one-y ear period may be extended for “ extraordinary circ umstances.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.5(a) (5)( iv). Both the I J and the BIA found that Abdelhalim’s application was ti mely in light of the ex traordi n ary circ umstance of her divorce

. Be cause the g overnme nt does not contest the timeliness of Abdelhalim’s application, we do not addr ess the question. 2No. 09-4276

Abdelhalim v. Holde r application on April 10, 2007. That same day , DHS char ged h er with remova bility under § 237(a) (1)( B) of the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“I NA”) , 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (1)( B) , as an alien who had ove rstay ed her

nonimmigra

nt visa. At a hear ing befor e the I J on Fe bruar y 4, 2008, Abdelhalim was the only witness to testify

. She explained tha

t she had lived in E g y

pt a s a student, that it was “risky ” then, a nd that now—as

a s i n gl e, divorce d woman—it would be particula rly dang erous, as she would be without any protec tion. She also noted t hat her modern dress and potential employ ment put her at further risk in Eg y pt beca use “eve ry

body is supposed to be wea ring the traditional clothes” and “g oing out and working is not . . . acce ptable.” Abdelhalim noted many problems with Eg y pt. As a student, she hear d about women being attacke d and rape d while walking the streets, and now she fea rs returning to Eg y

pt beca use the law does not punish men for attacks ag ainst women. Although she could prac tice medicine in Eg y pt, she would have to work late nights, which would expose her during her walk home at night to prec isely the attacks she fe are d. Abdelhalim also noted that she ha s few c onnections in Eg y pt now and that the old dean of her medical school has died , t h u s imply ing that it will be difficult for her to find employ ment in Eg y

pt. Abdelhalim also voice d co n ce rn s about her son. She stated both that the environment in Eg y pt is not safe for him and that her ex-hus b and could take the boy awa y from her under Sharia law. S h e s t at ed t h at one of his rela tives could make the reque st, a court would order it, and the police would come “g rab” her son.

3No. 09-4276

Abdelhalim v. Holde r When asked if she could return to J ordan instead, Abdelhalim responde d in the neg ative. She explained that J ordan was not her country beca use her fathe r is Eg y

ptian. Although she was raised in Kuwait, she stated that she could not return there beca use she is not a Kuwaiti citizen, nor could she obtain a work visa to prac tice medicine in Kuwait beca use phy sicians’ salarie s are very high in the g ulf states and c ompetition for the rig ht to work there is too fierce

. I n addition to her testimony , Abdelhalim submitt ed sever al articl es and the State De p artment’s 2006 Country Report for Eg y pt to buttress her claims reg arding torture, ra p e, opportunities for women, and Sharia law. On torture, the Report indicated that torture “is perva sive in Eg y ptian detention cent e r s , ” li s te d numerous political opponents and others who had been tortured while being held in detention cente rs, and noted that the g overnme nt failed to investiga te instances of pol ice abuse. The Report conclude d that the Egy ptian g overnme nt’s “re spect for human rights

rema ined poor.” The Report noted that spousal rape is permitted and that some 47.4% of Eg y ptian

women have s uffe red some form of domestic violence. Non-spousal rape , howeve r, is illega l, althoug h some activists stated rape is “not uncommo n , despite strong social disapproval.” Wit h reg ard to employ

ment opportunities, the Report stated that the law provides equal pay for men and women in public-sec tor jobs. Women make up 17% o f p ri v ate business owner s and hold 25% of manag eria l positions in the country ’s four larg est banks. Educa ted women “h ad employ ment opportunities, but social pressure ag ainst women pursuing a car eer was strong .” And on Sharia law,

one of Ab d el h al im’s article s noted, “despite decla rations of the equality of the sexes befor e God,

women are considere d inferior to men, and have few er rig hts and responsibilities.” A State

4No. 09-4276

Abdelhalim v. Holde r Depa rtment repor

t on I s l am i c Fa m ily L aw conce ded that, in the event of divorce , the fathe r will alway s g ain possession of a son, althoug h a daug hter may be permitted to rema in with her mother. T h e I J fo u n d Abdelhalim credible, but conclude d that the evidence to allow her to remai n

was we ak. The I J noted that Abdelha lim has not suffe red any past perse cution and ther efor e does not enjoy the statutory presumption of a well -f o u n d ed fea

r of future perse cution. Her fea r of returning to E g y

pt c enter ed on thre e points: (a) if she took her son to E g y pt, he r ex-husband could take him awa

y from her under Sharia law; (b) if she g oes to Eg y pt as a single , divorce d woman she would likely be a victim of crime, including rape ; and (c) as a “moder n woman” who does not abide by traditional Muslim dress or other pr actice s, she will fac e per secution. The I J did not find that these arguments justified g ranting asy lum. As to her son, the I J noted that the boy lives with his fathe r and is a United States citi z en . T h e evidence shows no rea son Abdelhalim’s son would have to g o with her to Eg y pt; rathe r, the evidenc e sug g ests he would rema in in the Un i t ed S t at es with his fathe r. As to crime, the I J noted that “bec oming a victim of crime g ener ally is not a basis for asy lum” beca

use crime aff

ects all people. That women may suffe r more from crime th an m en d o es not make Abdelhalim “a member of a particular social g roup.” The I J

conce ded that women fac e discrimination in Eg y pt but did not find any evidenc e that “m o d er n women” are perse cuted. Rather, the I J found that Abdelhalim’s “conc erns are not supported by the evidenc e t h at s h e has submitt ed.” The I J noted that, acc ording to the Report , women make up a substantial proportion of profe s s i o n als and have employ ment opportunities. The I J believed that Abdelhalim would have g ood employ ment prospec ts as a phy sician who has passed the ML E. The I J conce ded that Abde lhalim might have to w ork late or irregular shifts a nd thus have to commute 5No. 09-4276

Abdelhalim v. Holde r home late at night i n potentially dang erous circ umstances, but the I J dismiss ed this as an unconvincing argument by noting that “in many , many locations in the United States

. . . this same fea r is justified.” Moreove r, the I J found there is no rea son Abdelhalim could not have a car in which to commute safe ly

. The I J thus conclude d that, althoug h Abdelhalim might subjectively have

rea l f ear s about returning to E g y pt, “ the evidenc e . . . does not support the idea that those fea

rs are objectively

rea sonable.” 2 The I J deter

mined that Abdelhalim had not experience d past perse cuti on or prese nted evidenc e sufficie nt to establish a well-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution on account of the fac tors

enumer ated by the I

NA. Having failed to meet the threshold for an asy lum claim, the I J also found Abdelhalim “nec essar ily failed to meet the highe r standard require d to prove her elig ibilit y for relief in the form of withholding of remova l under Section 241 of t he [ I NA].” Finally , the I J noted that she had prese nted “no evidenc e of any sort to establish that she would be subjected to torture by , or at the instigation of, or with the acquie scenc e of the g overnme nt of Eg y pt” and thus failed to prove elig ibilit y for withholding of remova l under the CAT. The I J there fore order ed that Abdelhalim be

remove d to Eg y

pt and that her applications for asy lum, withholding of remova l, and protec tion under the CAT be de nied. The BIA revie wed the I J ’s decision as to law and fac t, aff irmed the decision, and dismiss ed Abdelhalim’s appea l. The appea ls panel noted that Abdelhalim “wa s unable to meet her burden of proof for relief or protec tion.” Although the BIA noted potential problems Abdelhalim might fac e

The I J also noted that Abde lhalim has both parents a nd siblings in J ordan, but she did not 2 explain why

she could not live there . (AR 76.) 6No. 09-4276

Abdelhalim v. Holde r in Eg y pt, it conclude d that her fea r “re mains g ener ally specula tive.” The BIA found the submitt ed evidenc e insufficient to demonstrate that she woul d be “tar g eted for perse cution on acc ount of a g round enumer ated in the definition of ref ug ee found in the [I

NA].” There fore , Abdelhalim failed to establish her eligibility for a sy lum and, having failed that lower standard, necessa rily failed the highe r burden for withholding of remova l. The BIA conclude d by finding that Abdelhalim had also failed to mee t her burde n of proof with respec t to the CAT. The matter

now comes be fore this court. I I

. This court’s revie w is restric ted to the administrative rec ord. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(A)

. Where the B I A af

firms the I J ’s ruli ng but adds i ts own comments, this court reviews both the I J ’s decision and the BIA’s rema rks

. Karimijanaki v. Holder , 579 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gilaj v. Gonzales , 408 F.3d 275, 283 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). Where the BIA revie ws the I J ' s decision and issues a separ ate opinion, rathe r than summarily aff irming the I J ’s decision, this court revie ws the BIA’s decision as the final ag ency deter mination. Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Morgan v. Keisler , 507 F.3d 1053, 1057 (6th Cir. 2007)). Howeve r, to the extent the BI A adopted the I J ’s rea soning, this court also revie ws the I J ’s decision

. Id.; see also Pate l v

. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 216, 218 (6th Cir. 2006)

. Questions of law are revie wed de novo , but substantial defe renc e is g iven to the BIA’s interpre tation of the I NA and ac company

ing r eg ulations. Khalil i , 557 F.3d at 435. “The BIA’s int erpr etation of the s tatute and regulations will be upheld u n le s s th e in

te rpre tation is arbitra

ry , capr icious, or manifestly contra ry to the statute.” Id. (interna l citations and quotation marks omitted). 7No. 09-4276

Abdelhalim v. Holde r “[T] he administrative finding s of fac t are conclusive unle s s a n y r e a s o n a b le a d ju d ic a to r would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ). Finding s of fac t are revie wed under the defe rential substantial evidenc e standard and “must be upheld if supported by rea sonable, substantial, and proba tive evidenc e on the r ecor d considere d as a whole.” Mikhailev itch v. I.N.S. , 146 F.3d 384, 388 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1 9 92)). Under this standa

rd, this c ourt may reve rse if the evidenc e prese nted “not only supports a contra ry conclusion, but i n deed compe ls it.” Id. (quoting Klawi tter v. I.N.S. , 970 F.2d 149, 152 (6th Cir. 1 9 9 2 ). This court will not reve rse simply on the g round that it would have decide d the matter differ ently

. Koliada v. I.N.S. , 259 F.3d 482, 486 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, this court will look to the

e v id e n c e p r e sented to deter mine if “a rea sonable fac tfinder would have to conclude ” that Abdelhalim established her claims for asy lum, withholding of remova l, or protec tion under the CAT. See EliasZacarias , 502 U.S. at 481. I I I

. To establish her claim for asy lum, Abdelhalim must establish that she is a ref ug ee within the meaning of §101(a )(42) of the I NA, which pr ovides, in releva nt part: ‘re fug ee’ m ea n s . . . any person who is outside any country of such person’ s nationality

. . . and who is unable or unwilling to re turn to . . . that country beca use of perse cution or a well-founde d fea r of perse cution on ac co u n t o f rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42). Abdelhalim bear s the burden of proof. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)

. To preva il, she must show that the potential harm rises to the l ev el o f p er s ecution on acc ount of one of the protec ted g rounds and that the g overn m en t , or persons the g overnme nt is unable or unwilling to

8No. 09-4276

Abdelhalim v. Holde r control, is the source of the perse cution

. Pilica v. Ashcroft , 388 F.3d 941, 950–51 (6th Cir. 2004). “[H]a ra s s m en t or discrimination without more does not rise to the level of perse cution.” Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 389. An applicant who has suffe red past perse cution enjoy s a rebuttable presumption that s h e h as a well-founde d fea r of future persec ution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 1), but the I J and BIA found that Abdelhalim did not suffe r past perse cution, and she does not challeng e that finding on appea l. Abdelhalim’s argument that she has a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution cente rs on law from other circ uits and g ener al statements about fea r of perse cution. This court must up h o l d t he BIA’s decision—eve n if the panel would have decide d the matter differ ently , Koliada , 259 F.3d at 4 86—provided the decision is supported by substantial evidenc e. As our revie w of t h e re co rd indicates , the rec ord in this case does include rea sonable, substantial, and probative evidenc e supporting the I J and B I A’s dec isions. Be cause the dec ision is s upported by substantial evidence , while Abdelhalim has offe red no evidenc e that compels a differ ent conclusion, we deny the petition for r eview of

the B I A dec ision. Abdelhalim relies on a Ninth Circuit opinion in support of her argument that she has a wellfounded fea

r of future perse cution. The court in that case states: “[d] iscrimination, hara ssment, and violence b y g r o ups the g overnme nt is unwilling or unable to control can also constitute perse cution.” Singh v. I.N.S. , 94 F.3d 1353, 1359 (9th Cir. 1996). Singh , howeve r, is not binding on this court, and

9No. 09-4276

Abdelhalim v. Holde r it is direc tly contra dicted by our post- Singh prec edent that “har assmen t or discrimination without more doe s not rise to the level of pe rsec ution.” Mikhailev itch , 146 F.3d at 389. 3 Abdelhalim’s brief is also incorre ct in that she argues that “the regulations do not define what

co n stitut es a pattern or prac tice of perse cution,” imply ing that this panel can define persecu t i o n howeve r it wishes. W e d isag ree . Abdelhalim’s application focuse s on crime, and this court has previously held that “[the] fea r of crime

. . . [i s] leg itimate but [i s] not rele vant to [her] fea r of future

. . . perse cution.” Koliada , 259 F.3d at 488. Abdelhalim offers no compelling argument that the 4 I J or B I A applied the w rong leg al standar ds. Abdelha l i m fo cu s es much of her brief on an arg ument that the record facts, as argued and prese nted t o the I J , show she had a we l l -f o unded fear of future persec ution. This court, however, must uphold the I J and BIA’s fac tual finding s unless the evidenc e compels us to hold otherwise. We find that Abdelhalim’s rec itation of the same fac ts previously raised befor e the I J offe rs no g round for reve rsal

. Her brief notes that “Eg y pt’s human rig hts rec ord rema ins poor” and includes “discrimination and violence ag ainst women.” But as not ed above, di scrimination and crime are 5

Abdelhalim also emphasi z es t h at persons other than the g overnme nt can be the cause of 3 perse cution. Whil e this point is true, it applies only to “per sons a g overnme nt is unwilling or unable t o co n t ro l .” Pilica , 388 F.3d at 950. Be cause Eg y pt has laws making crimes ag ainst singl e, divorce d, women illega l and these laws are enfor ced, Abdelhal im ’ s e mp h a s is o n p erse cution by other g roups is misleading. Koliada is slightly differ ent from this case in that Koliada’ s fea r was of political perse cution, 4 which Abdelhalim is not alleg ing. Howeve r, Koliada establishes that a g ener al fea r of crime is not rele vant to a fe ar of

future pe rsec ution, and we se e no re ason to distinguish that holding he re. Whether the situation in Eg y pt is still the same toda

y , in light of the r ece nt revolution and 5 changing political circ umstances, is unclea r. Our curr ent revie w is limit ed to the admi n i s t ra t i v e 10No. 09-4276

Abdelhalim v. Holde r not enoug h to establish perse cution. Additionally , no t o n l y i s discrimination not perse cution, but also the extent of discrimination ag ainst women in Eg y pt is debata

ble considering that women may be employ ed and hold a substantial proportion of profe ssional jobs. Moreove r, Abdelhalim offe rs

no evidenc e that any harm that would come to her would stem from the g overnme nt or g roups that the g overnme nt cannot control; quite the contra ry , the crime and hara ssment she fea rs is illega l under Eg y ptian law. The Report does cit e re al v i olence that women fac e in Eg y pt, but that violence is primarily domestic v i o lence ag ainst marrie d women. I n summary , Abdelhalim has not offe red a compelling rea son to reve rse the I J and BI A’s holding that she failed to show a well-founded fear of future perse cution and is not entitled to asy lum. To establish a claim for withholding of remova l, Abdelhalim must either establish that “her life or fre edom would be threa tened in the proposed country of re m oval on acc ount of [her] rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g roup, o r p o l i tical opinion,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b), or show “a clea r probability that [she] will be subject to perse cution if forc ed to return to the country of re moval.” Pilica , 388 F.3d at 951. This bur den is “ a more stringe nt bur den than what is require d on a claim for asylum.” Id. Abdelhalim ar g ues that she ha s met this burden “for the reasons set forth herein , ” b u t s i n ce h er arg ument on appea l is simply a recitation of her initial argument that both the I J and BIA found insufficient for asy lum, it follows that Abdelhalim’s appea l does not compel reversa l on the wit hholding of remova l claim i f reversa l is not compelled for t he asy lum claim.

rec ord. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (A). 11No. 09-4276

Abdelhalim v. Holde r Abdelhalim’s claim for protec tion under the CAT fails for simil ar rea sons. To be protec ted under the CAT, she must show it is “more likely than not that

. . . she would be tortured if remove d to the proposed country of remova l.” Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 641 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2))

. Abdelhalim asser ts that she qualifies beca

use “she fea

rs harm that would constitute torture by the Gover nment.” The I J found, howeve r, that Abdelhalim “has prese nted no evidenc e of any sort to establish that she woul d b e s u b j ecte d to torture by

. . . the g overnme nt of Eg y pt.” Altho u gh t h e R ep o r t states that torture does take place in Eg y pt, Abdelhalim has never explained why she would be the victim of such torture. She offe red no evidenc e to the I J , an d on appea l, she makes no new arg ument save broad asser

tions. Assertions without evidenc e or support do not compel us to rea ch a dif fer ent conc lusion.

I V. For the fore g oing r easons, we deny the petition for re view.

12