T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R OS HD Y S HE HA T A MI NA S HE HA T A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74797 A ge nc yN o. A 096- 026- 666 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t1, 2011 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T H O M A S , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R os hdyS he ha t aM i naS he ha t a , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of E gypt , pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve 

# FI LED AU G 2 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74797 2 j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i al evi dence fa ctual fi n d i n g s, Zehat

ye v. G on zales , 4 5 3 F . 3 d1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 4 - 8 5 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) , a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. S he ha t adoe s notc ha l l e nge the I J ’ s di s pos i t i ve f i ndi ng tha thi s appl i c a t i on fo r asyl u m w as u n t i m el y. A cco rd i n g l y, S h eh at a’ s asyl u m cl ai m fai l s. E ven i f S hehat a w as cr edi bl e, the re cord do es no tcom pel the concl usi on that the i nci dentw here M usl i m m en beathi m and the i nci dentw here the po l i ce d et ai n edan db eath i m , ev en co n si d ered cu m u l at i v el y, am o u n t edt o p ast p e r s e c u tio n . See G u v. G on zales , 45 4 F . 3d10 14 , 10 19 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). In a d d i t i o n , e v e n i f

h e wa s am e m b e ro f

ad i s f a v o r e dg r o up , S h e h a t ah a s n o ts h o wn s u f f ic ie n t in d iv idu a liz e dr is kto e s tab lis h ac le a rp r o b ab ilityo f p e r s e c u tio n . See H o x h a v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 1 9 F .3 d1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; W akkaryv. H

older , 558 F . 3d 10 49 , 10 66 -67 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( “ [a ] n app l i cantfor w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al w i l l n eedt o ad d u ce a co n si d erab l y l arg er q u an tu m o f i n d i v i du al i zed -ri sk ev i d en ce”). F u rth er, th e reco rdd o es n o tco m p el th e co n cl u si o n th atth ere i s a p a tte rn o rp r a c tic e o f

p e r s e c u tio n o f

C o p tic C h r is tia n s . Se e i d. a t 1 0 6 0 - 6 2 . A cco rd i n g l y, S h eh at a’ s w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al cl ai m al so fai l s. F i nal l y, subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s deni al of C A T re l i ef because S hehat a f

ai l ed t o est abl i sh thati ti s m ore l i kel y than n othe w i l l be t ortured08- 74797 3 b yo rw ith th e a c q u ie s c e n c e o f th e E g yp tia n g o v e rn m e n t. See Si laya v. Mukasey , 5 2 4 F .3 d1 0 6 6 , 1 0 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.