N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ZOHAIR AM ANULLAH PAR

EKH, a ka M artin M . M aric ris,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-71827 Age n c y No. A096-448-460
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d June 8, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER and M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B OLTON, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED J UN 12 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Susa n R . B olton, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r Zoha ir Am a nulla h Pare kh se e ks re vie w of the B o ard of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s ’ (" B IA" ) de c ision dism issing his a

ppe a l of the im

m igration judge ’ s (" IJ" ) de nia l of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l , a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(" C AT" ). W e de ny the pe tition in pa

rt, a nd we dism iss it in pa

rt. 1. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Pe titione r is ine l igible for a sy lum
. 1 Se e , Ha nna v. Ke i sle r, 506 F.3d 933, 937 (9th C ir. 2007) (" The B IA’ s de c ision tha

t a n a lie n ha s not e sta

b lishe d e ligibility for a sy lum

is
re vie we d for substa

ntia l e vide nc e ." ). The re c ord doe s not c om p e l the c onc lusion that the re is a " patte rn or pra c tic e " of pe rse c ution of Shiite M u slim s in Pa

kista n. Although discrim ination is wide spre a d, a n d som e Shiite M uslim s a re pe rse c ute d, doc um e nts in there c o rd sta t e tha t " [m ] ost of Pa

k ista n’ s Sunni a

nd Shia M uslim s live pe a c e fully

toge the r." Se e W ak

ka ry v. Holde r, 558 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th C ir. 2009) (" Although the

re c ord c onta ins e vide nc e of wide s pre a d a nti-C hine se and
anti-C hristia

n disc rim ination tha

t a ffe c ts a ve ry la rge num be r of individuals, a

nd
a lthough it is c le ar that

a c e rta in portion of those

individuals suffe r tre a tm e nt tha t rise s to the le ve l of pe rse c ution, there c ord doe s not e sta blish tha t the situa tion in

1 B e c a use we c onc lude that substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm i nation of ine ligibility , we do not re a c h the B IA’ s a lte rnative holding tha t Pe titione r’ s a

pplic a tion for a sy lum

wa s untim e ly
. 2Indone sia

is simi la r to the patte rns or pra c tic e s of pe rse c ution de sc ribe d in our prior c a se la

w ." ). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t, a s sum ing tha

t Pe titione r is a

m e m b e r of a " disfa vore d group," he ha s not shown a n individualiz e d fe ar of pe rse c ution. Them urde r of Pe titione r’ s gra

ndfathe r in 1999, by unknown
a ssa ila nts, doe s not giverise to a n individualiz e d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Pe titione r’ s pa

re nts a n d siblings re m a in in Ka

ra c hi, whe re the y

pra c tic e the ir
re ligion a nd ha ve not be e n ha

rm e d. Se e Tam ang v. Holde r, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th C ir. 2010) (" [A] pe t itione r’ s fe a r of future pe rse c ution is we ake ne d, e ve n unde rc ut, whe n sim ila

rly -situa t e d fam ily

m e m be rs living in the

pe titione r’ s hom e
c ountry are not ha

rm e d." (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

n d e m pha sis om i tte d)). 2. B e c a use Pe titione r fa ile d to m e e t his burde n of e s ta blishing e ligibility

for
a sy lum , he ne c e s sa

rily fa ile d to sa

tisfy the highe r sta

nda rd for withholding of
re m ova l. Ya

n Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 926 n.5 (9th C ir. 2011). 3. W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r Pe titione r’ s c ha l le nge to the IJ’ s de nia l of C AT
re lie f, be c a

use he fa ile d

to e xha ust his a dm i nistra

tive re m e die s. The B IA he ld— an d Pe titione r ha s not c ha lle nge d on a ppe a l

— that Pe titione r wa ive d the issue of C AT re lie f be c a

use he did not " m e a

ningfully c ha lle nge " the IJ’ s de nia l. Se e R e ndon v. Muka s e y , 520 F.3d 967, 972 (9th C ir. 2008) (holding tha t a
3" ge ne ra l c ha lle nge to the IJ’ s de c ision" c onc e rning a n issue is insuffic ie nt to
e xha ust the issue (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d)). Pe tition DE N IE D in par t and DISM ISSE D in par t.

4