N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HAJI FOFANA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-73851 Age n c y No. A078-675-778 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 De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Ha ji Fofa na , a native and c itiz e n of Sie rra Le one , pe titions for re v ie w of a B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). Our 

# FIL ED D EC 19 2013 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C ir. 2009), a nd re v ie w de novo c la i m s of due proc e ss viola tions, C ruz Re ndon v . Holde r , 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the p e tition for re v i e w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t the m urde r of Fofana ’ s m othe r wa s not pe rse c ution of Fofa na . Se eW

ak k ary , 558 F.3d at 1060; Ec he v e rria-He rnande

z v . IN S , 923 F.2d 688, 691 (9th C ir. 1991), v ac ate d on othe r grounds by

Ec h e v e rria-He rnande

z v . IN S , 946 F.2d 1481 (9th C ir. 1991) (“ The de ath of one fam ily m e m

be r doe s not trigger a swe e ping e ntitle m e nt to a sy lum e ligibility for a ll m e m

b e rs of [the ] e xte n de d fam ily .” ). Furthe r, substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the

a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t Fofa na fa ile d to de m onstra

t e the inc i de nt in whic h re be ls a tte m pte d to re c ruit him

wa s on a c c ount of a

prote c te d ground. Se e IN

S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992). Thus, we re je c t Fofana ’ s c onte ntion tha

t he ha d a re butta ble pre sum

ption of futurepe rse c ution. Se e Molina-Estrada v

. IN S, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th C ir. 2002). Substa ntia l e vide nc e a l so supports the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm ination tha t Fofa na fa ile d to e sta

blish a n obje c tive ly

re a sona b l e fe ar of future pe rse c ution by re be ls in Sie rra

Le one now tha

t the c ivil wa

r is ove r. Se e N

agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th C ir. 2003)
1 1 - 7 3 8 5 1 2(possibility

of future pe rse c ut ion too spe c ulative ). W e re je c t Fofa na ’ s c onte ntion that the a ge nc y

did not c onduc t a

n individualiz e d a

n a ly sis of his c la i m , or tha t the a ge nc y viola

te d due proc e ss in its a

na ly sis of his c la im . S

e e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re q uiring e rror to pre va il on a due proc e ss c la im ). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r any argum e nts Fofa

na ra i se s re ga

rding a patte rn or pra c tic e of pe rse c ution a

n d hum anita

rian a sy lum . Se eBarron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004) (no jurisdiction to re v ie w c onte ntions not rai se d be fore the a ge nc y ). C onse que ntly , his a sy lum c la im fa ils. B e c a use Fofana

fa ile d to e sta

blish e ligibility

for a sy lum , he ne c e ssa

rily fa ile d to m e e t the highe r burde n of proof for withholding of re m ova l . Se eZe haty e v . Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2006). Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the a g e nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT prote c tion be c a

use Fofana

fa ile d to e sta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha

n not hewould be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c q uie s c e n c e of a

public offic ia l in Sie rra

Le one . Se e Silay a v . Muk

ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). C ontra ry to Fofa na ’ s c onte ntion, theB IA prope rly ana ly z e d his C AT c l a im . PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 1 - 7 3 8 5 1 3