N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANJUM AN YAR

A , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-72323 Age n c y No. A079-572-643
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 Ja

nua ry 14, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TALLM AN a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd O’ C ONNELL, Distric t Judge
. *** Anjum an Ya

ra pe titions for re vie w of the de c i sion of theB oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (B IA) a ffirm ing the Im m igrat ion Judge ’ s (IJ) de nia l of he r



# FIL ED JAN 21 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble B e ve rly

R e id O’ C o nne l l, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a l ifornia , sitting by de signa t ion.a

pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re l ie f unde r the C o nve ntion Aga inst Torture(C A T). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ), and we de ny the pe tition. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA and IJ’ s c onc lusion tha t Ya ra e xpe rie nc e d only

ha ra ssm e nt from

the Nat ive Fijia

ns, not pa st pe rse c ution. Pe rse c ution is “ an e xtre m e c onc e pt, m arke d by the inflic t ion of suffe ring or ha rm . . . in a wa y re ga rde d a s offe nsive ,” Li v . Ashc r oft , 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th C ir. 2004) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d), a

nd a re a s ona ble fa c tfinde r would not be
c om pe lle d to c onc lude tha

t the thre ats a

nd a b u se Yara de sc ribe d rise to tha

t le ve l. Se e Hox ha v
. Ashc roft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1181–82 (9th C ir. 2003) (holding tha t y e ars of “ unfulfille d thre a ts,” and one se ve re be ating, “ c onstitute ha ra ssm e nt rat

he r tha n pe rse c ution” ). The re c ord shows tha t Ya ra suffe re d only pushing, shoving a

nd torn
c lothe s, in c ontra st to be ing he ld hosta ge at gunpoint a n d knife -point by

soldie rs, looting a nd viole nt thre a ts, whic h c ould c o nstitutepe rse c ution. Se e Surita v . I.N .S. , 95 F.3d 814, 817–18, 821 (9th C ir. 1996). Although Ya ra ’ s house wa s de stroy e d by fire , the re c ord doe s not c o m pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the fire wa s c a

u se d by Native Fijia

ns. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA and IJ’ s de te rm i nation tha t Ya ra fa ile d to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution ba s e d on he r sta tus a s vic tim

of dom e stic 2viole nc e . B e c a use Ya ra te stifie d tha

t the polic e took som e a c t ion in re sponse to he r re ports a ga inst he r husba nd, a nd on a t le a s t one oc c a sion sc he dule d a c ourt da te ba se d on a

re port she file d, the re c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t “ the [Fijia n ] gove rnm e nt wa s una

ble or unwilling to c ontrol” he r husba nd. Baghdasaryan v . Holde r , 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th C ir. 2010); c f. N ahrv a ni v
. Gonzale s , 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th C ir. 2005). The B IA and IJ’ s de te rm ination tha t Ya ra did not c arry

he r burde n of showing a

we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution by Nat ive Fijia ns wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Signific ant tim e ha s e la pse d sinc e she c l a im e d to ha ve be e n thre a te ne d, a

nd the thre ats she re c e ive d we re not “ suffic ie ntly spe c ific and
re a l ” to c om

pe l the c onc l usion tha

t he r fe ars a

re obje c tive ly

re a sona ble
. Mondoza Pe re z v . U.S. I.N

.S. , 902 F.2d 760, 762 (9th C ir. 1990). B e c a use Ya ra fa ile d to de sc ribe m i stre atm e n t by Native Fijia

ns tha t rose to the l e ve l of pe rse c ution, e ithe r a ga i nst he r or Indo-Fijia n s ge ne ra lly , he r c la im s tha t she is e ntitle d

to a sy lum

ba se d on a

patte rn or pra c tic e of pe rse c ution a nd
e xtre m e ly se ve re pe rse c ution wa

rranting hum anita

rian re lie f ne c e ssa

rily fa il a s we ll. Se eW

a k k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th C ir. 2009) (re je c ting a patte rn or pra c tic e argum e nt whe n “ the re c ord c onta in[e d] e vide nc e of wide spre a d

. . . disc rimination tha

t a ffe c ts a ve ry la rge num be r of individuals,” not 3pe rse c ution); K umar v . I.N

.S. , 204 F.3d 931, 932–33, 935 (9th Ci r. 2000) (re je c ting
a hum anita ria n a sy lum c la im by an Indo-Fijia

n wom an who wa s be ate n by soldie rs on m ultipleoc c a sions, a

nd onc e strippe d a

nd fondle d

by soldie rs who thre ate ne d to kill he r). Yara ’ s fa i lure to e sta

blish e ligibility

for a sy lum

dispose s of he r a

rgum e nts that she is e ntitle d to withholding of re m ova l. Farah v . Ashc r oft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). M ore ove r, in the a bse nc e of a

ny e vide nc e tha

t she m ay be subje c t to torture“ inflic t e d by or at the instiga

tion of or with the

c onse nt or
a c quie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c ting in a n offic ia l c a

p a c ity ,” 8 C .F.R . § 208.18(a)(1), the B IA and IJ did not err in de ny i ng re lie f unde r C AT. Se e Silay a v . Muk

ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4