N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W AHIB SAEED M O HAM M ED AL B ANNA, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-71374 Age n c y No. A215-820-829
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 15, 2021 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : R

AW LINSON, C HR ISTEN, a nd R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s . Pe titione r, a

c itiz e n a nd na tive of Ye m e n, se e ks re v ie w of the B IA de c ision de ny ing pe titione r’ s a

pplic ation for a sy l um , withholding of re m ova l , a n d de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). The B IA de te rm ine d 

# F IL ED JUL 1 2021 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).that

pe titione r wa s ine ligiblefor a sy lum and withholding pursua

n t to 8 U.S.C
. § 1182(a )(3)(B )(iv)(VI), be c a use he ha d provide d “ m ate ria l support” to the Houthi
m ilitia , a te rrorist orga

niz ation. The B IA a lso rule d tha t pe t itione r ha d not de m onstra

te d tha t he wa s e ligiblefor de fe rra l of re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a) and we de ny the pe tition. 1

“ W e re vie w only

the B IA’ s opinion, e xc e pt to thee xte nt tha t it e xpre s sly
a dopte d portions of the

IJ’ s de c ision.” Ve lasque z-Gaspar v . Barr , 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th C ir. 2020). TheB IA e xpre ssly sta te d tha t it did not re a c h the IJ’ s a lte rnative de te rm inations on ne xus. The B IA’ s fa c tua l findings unde rly ing its de te rm i nation tha

t a pe titione r is not e ligiblefor a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, or C AT re lie f are re vie we d for substa

ntia l e vide nc e , A rte aga v . Muk a se y , 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th C ir. 2007), a nd its de te rm inations on que stions of la w a re re v ie we d de novo, Rodrigue

z v . Holde r , 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th C ir. 2012). 1. Whe re the B IA c onc lude s a pe titione r is ine ligiblefor a sy lum or withholding of rem o v a l pursua nt to them at e ria l support ba r, we re ta in jurisdic tion to c o nside r “ c olora

ble c onstitutiona

l c la im s or que stions of la w,” inc luding mixe d que stions of fa c t a

nd la w whe re the fa c ts a

re undispute d. Se e Ray amajhi v
.

1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s a

nd we re c ount the m

only a s ne c e ssa ry to re solve the issue s on a ppe a l. 2W

hitak e r , 912 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th C ir. 2019); s e e also 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(D); K han v . Holde r , 584 F.3d 773, 780 (9th C ir. 2009).. Pe titione r c onte nds the B IA e rre d a s a m atte r of la

w by c o n c luding tha

t pa y ing his household e xpe nse s a nd pa y ing nomina l tolls a

m ounte d to “ m ate ria l support” of the Houthi militia be c a use the Houthi militia

ha d ta k e n ove r a s the de fa c t o gove rnm e nt. The gove rnm e n t c ha

ra c te riz e s pe t itione r’ s brie f a s ra i sing a dure ss a rgum e nt. In Annac hamy

v . Holde r , we he ld tha

t “ the m ate ria l support ba

r doe s not inc lude an im plie d e xc e ption for individua ls . . . who provide

support [to a

te rrorist orga niz ation] unde r dure ss.” 733 F.3d 254, 267 (9th C i r. 2013), ov e rrule d in part on othe r grounds by

Abdisalan v. Holde r , 774 F.3d 517, 526 (9th C ir. 2015) (e n ba nc ). To the e xte nt pe titione r ra ise s dure ss, tha t argum e nt is fore c lose d by our c a se la w. Pe titione r a lso ra ise s a

polic y argum e nt, urging us to a

dopt a re a ding of 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a)(3)(B )(iv)(VI) that would e xe m pt thosewho tra

n sfe r funds to a te rrorist orga

niz ation for ne c e ssa

ry se rvic e s whe n the te rrorist orga niz ation be c om e s the de fa c to gove rnm e nt in a n a re a . Eve n if we we re to a g re e with pe titione r that the B IA’ s broa d re a ding of “ m ate ria l support”le a ds to troubling
re sults, heha s not provide d a ny sta tutory ana ly sis of § 1182(a

)(3)(B )(iv)(VI) to
3sugge s t tha

t C ongre ss inte nde d a

diffe re nt m e aning. Se e Fe d. R
. App. P. 28(a )(8) (Appe lla nt’ s brie f m

ust c onta i n

“ a ppe lla nt’ s c onte ntions a

nd the re a sons for the m , with c ita t ions to the a

uthoritie s a

nd pa rts of the re c ord on whic h the a ppe l la nt
re lie s” ). Pe titione r ha s not shown tha t the B IA m isa

p plie d the m ate ria l support ba r. 2. Pe titione r fa ile d to show his c la im for de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C AT
wa s inc orre c tly

dism isse d. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s c o nc lusion that pe titione r c ould re a sona

bly re loc ate within Ye m e n to a void torture . The IJ found la rge are a s of southe rn Ye m e n are be y o nd Houthi c ontrol, a nd Pe t itione r did not show hewould be una ble to re l oc ate to a

n a re a outsideof Houthi c ontrol. Pe titione r a lso c onte nds he c ould not re loc at e to othe r are a s of Ye m e n be c a use the y we re c ontrolle d by

Al Qa e da , a

group to whic h

pe titione r is oppose d. This a rgum e nt pre se nts a

fa l se dic hotom

y , sugge s ting pe titione r’ s only options a re to live in a

n a re a unde r the Houthi c ontrol or Al Qa e da c ontrol. A m a

p of Ye m e n in the re c ord shows a

re a s of Ye m e n tha

t a re not c ontrolle d by

e ithe r the Houthi
m ilitia or Al Qa e da
. Ac c ordingly , the re c ord doe s not c om p e l a finding tha

t it would be unre a sona

ble for pe titione r to re l oc ate within Ye m e n. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

4