The Honor able James L
. Gra ham, Unit ed S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Southern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0534n.06 No. 09-3478 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
F AD IHU SSEI

N N ASS ER, Petitioner,
v.
ERI C H . H OL DE R, JR. Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Be fore : SI L ER, and CL AY Circuit J udg es; GRAHAM, District Judge. * SILE R , Circuit J udg e. Petitioner F adi Hussein Na sser, a citizen of L ebanon, pe titions for revie w o f a B o ar d o f I mm igr a ti o n( “ B I A ” ) o r d e r . T h e o r d e r , w h il e o v e r r u li n g th e I mmig ration J ud g e ’ s ( “ I J” ) a dv e r s e c r e d ib il it y d e te r mi n a ti o nan d

r e ma n d in g f o r r e v ie w o f

N a s s e r ’ s r e qu e s t f

or voluntary depar ture, a ffirme d the I J ’s denial of Nasser ’s applications for withholding of r emoval under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“I NA” or “the Ac t”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1231, and Article 3 of

the United Nations Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd Other F orms of Cruel, Inhuman or Deg radingTreatment or Punishment (“CAT” or “ the Tre aty”), 8 C.F .R. § 208.16(c). For the following rea sons, we DENY Nasser ’s petition.No. 09-3478

Nasser v. Holder

He did no t ob je c t to the I J’s c on c lus io n th at he wa s ti me ba rr e d f ro m r e c e ivi nga sylum , 1 purs ua nt t o th e I NA , n or did he se e k a sylum
. We employ

the spelling used by

the State Depa

rtment. 2 - 2 -

I. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND Na sse r i lle g a lly

e nte re d th e Un ite d State s thr ou g h Me xico in 2 00 1. Af te r b e ingse rv e d w ith a notice to a

ppear pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (6)( A)(i) , Nasser attended a

n initial hearingin May 2005. Eventually , he subm itted an application for withholdi ng of removal and voluntary depar ture
u n d e r t h e A c tan d

a p e t i t i o nf o r w i t h h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l un d e r

th e T r e a ty. 1 I n May 2007, Nasser

testified in support of his application at the merits hea ring . He state d that he wa s a

c iti zen of L e ba no n; h is f a the r h a d d ie d te n y e ars e arl ie r; his mot he r w a s c ur

re ntl y residingin the family home in K far hatta, L ebanon; and his brother a nd sister wer e living in Duba i and Ge rmany , respe ctively
. He state d that he ser

ved in the L ebane se ar

my afte r hig h school. Upon hi s relea se fr om the milit ary in 1994, he opene d an ice cre am and liquor store
. Every two or three months, Hiz ballah 2 reque sted permission to place a donation box in his store. Ea ch time, Nasse r dec lined. Hizballah then beg an to sprea d g ossip about his store selling alcohol. Ac cordingto Nasser , Hizballah’s actions resulted in a sharp de cline in his business, beca use his Muslim patrons were prohibited from purcha sing a lcohol and his rema ining patrons—mostly Christian—stopped freque nting his stor e due to Hizballah’s perc eived pr esenc e. In 2000, Nasser closed his store beca

use, acc ording to him, he could no long er affor d to eat. Although he f ound other wor

k, the pay was not enough to fee d himself.No. 09-3478

Nasser v. Holder

- 3 - He c on sid e re d r e -l oc a tin g his sto re to B e ir ut, but de c ide d a g a ins t it a ft e r d e te rm ini ngthat th e c os t was prohibitive. Nasser depar ted for the Nether lands in 2001. Fr om there , he traveled to Mexico, and then to t he Un ite d St a te s. He state d th a t he wo uld no t ha ve e nte re d the Un ite d Stat e s if he ha d b e e n a ble to “fe ed [him] self” in Me x ico. Nasser also rec alled a 1995 ne ighbor hood shooting du

r in g wh ic h h is f a mi ly home was bur

ned down, an a ct he attributed to Hiz ballah. In addition, he testified that h is father had re sisted Hi zba lla h. F ina lly , h e re c a lle d th a t w he n h is o lde r b ro the r w a s r e c ru ite d b y Hi zba lla h to wo rk a s a g uard at the ag e of e ighte en, Na sser’s f ather sent him to work in the United Ara b Emirates. None of Nasser ’s fam i l y members pr ovided af fidavits in support of his petition. He
e xpla ine d that his mot

he r wa s il lit e rate and

c ou ld n ot f

ind anyon e to h e lp h e r wri te a le tte r. He did not think to ask his brother to corr oborate his testimony
. Howeve r, he ma intained that he would be unable to ea

rn a living if retur

ned to L ebanon. H e also submitted Country Reports and other documents to support his claims. The I J made a

n adver se cr edibility

deter mination, he ld that Nasser did not meet his burden to d e mon str a te pe rs e c uti on un de r e ith e r the Ac t or the Tr e a ty , a nd de nie d h is a

pp lic a tio n. He a lso denied Na sser’s r equest for voluntary

depar ture a nd order ed Na sser re moved. On appe al, the B IA re verse d the I J ’s cr edibility deter m i n ati on and denia l of voluntary depar ture a nd rema nded for a re -consider ation of Na sser’s e ligibi li ty f o r v o lu nta r y d e p a r tu r e p u r suant to I NA§ 24 0( B )( b)
. Ho we ve r, the B I A a ff ir me d th e I J’s d e nia l of

wi thh old ing

of re mov a l c la ims
. After the BI A’s order is sued, Nasser withdre w his petition for voluntary depar ture. He argues thatNo. 09-3478

Nasser v. Holder

- 4 - the B I A e rred by app ly ing the wr on g sta nd ard of re vie w t o h is w ithho ldi ngc la ims . H e a lso
ma int a ins tha

t su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e do e s n ot s up po rt the B I A’ s or de r a ff ir min g the I J’s d e nia l of

his wi thh old ingc la ims
. II. DI SCU SSIO N A. BIA’s Standard of

Review Na sse r a rgue s th a t th e B I A i nc or

re c tly a pp lie d a de no vo sta

nd ard of re vie w i n d e c idi nghis withholding claims. We will vacate and remand the B I A’s dec ision if it applies an improper leg al standard. See Tran v. G onzales , 447 F.3d 937, 943-44 (6th Cir. 2006)
. Howeve r, we have n ever held that the B I A’s fa ilure to state i ts level of revie w automatically war rants vacation. I n Preldakaj v. Keisler , 252 F. App’ x 79 (6th Cir. 2007), for example, we addresse d the questi on of whe ther the B I A w a s r e qu ir e d to “ e xplic itl y de scr ib e it s leve l of

re vie w” wh e n r e vie wi ngan I J’s a dv e rs e
cre dibilit y

finding
. Id. at 84. We deter mined that such a state ment wa s n ot require d, beca use the “text of the [BI A’s] opinion” demonstrated that “ the BIA eng ag ed in the appr opriate r eview f or cle ar
err or” of the I J ’s factual findings. Id. I n contra st, in Tran we vacated the BIA’s order overr uling a n I J ’s decision to g rant withhol ding unde r the CAT, whe re the BIA fa iled to state a standa rd of r eview in its order. 447 F.3d at 943-44. Unlike Preldakaj, the B I A’s “tr eatment of Tran’ s claims [di d] not make it evident to this Court w h at standard of revie w the B I A employ ed.” Id. at 944. Moreove r,
on a pp e a l, T ra

n a lle g e d that the B I A impr op e rl y e le vate d his bur de n o f p ro of fr om t he “ mor e lik e ly than not” standa

rd under CAT. Id. Th e se c on c e rn s l ed th e pan el to re mand to t he B I A “ fo r i ts consideration of Tran’ s CAT claim under the cor rec t standard of

revie w and bur den of pr oof.” Id.No. 09-3478

Nasser v. Holder

- 5 - Her e, Na sser doe s not argue that the B I A applied an incorre ct burden of proof to his case, a s d id the petitioner in Tran
. I n s te a d h e c la im s o n ly th a t th e B I A u s e d an in c o r r e ct standar d of revie w—namely , that the B I A made a de novo inquiry

into the fac ts of his case . The B I A’s opinion, h o w e v e r , b e l i e s s u c h a c o n c l u s i o n . A f t e r r e v i e w i n g th e IJ ’ s f

i n d i n g s o f f a c tf o r c l e ar e r r o r , th e B IA aff irmed the I J ’s dec ision that Nasser failed to sustain the proof ne cessa ry to qualify for withholding of re moval under the I

NA or the CAT. To rea ch this decis i o n , t h e BIA re viewed the I J ’s fa ctual f i n d i n g s an d

d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e y d i d n o t s u

p p o rt a f i n d i n g o f e i th e r p a s t o r f

u tur e p e r s e c u t i o n . It noted that Nasser ’s testimony about his store , Hizballah’s part in its failure , and h i s u n s u cc essful eff orts to procure new e mploy ment, wer e not suffic ient fac ts to es t ab l i s h past perse cution. See Da ne sh v ar v . A sh c ro ft , 355 F.3d 615, 625 n.9 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (“Ec onomic deprivation constitut es p e r s e c u t i o no n l y

w h e nt h e r e s u l t i n g c o n d i t i o n s ar e s u f f i c i e n t l y s e v e r e . ” ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) )
. In addition, the BIA brief

ly stated that Na sser fa iled to demonstrate that he was more likely than not to fac e per secution or torture if retur ned to L ebanon. Al tho ug h th e B I A’ s de c isi on , in a dd re ssi ngNa sse r’ s w ithho ldi ngc la im, do e s n ot e xplic itl y state that it is reviewingthe fa cts for c lear err or, the opinion as a whole demonst ra t es t h e BI A’s cog nizance and a

pplication of b o t h the cor rec t standard of

revie w and bur den of pr oof. Thus, the “text of the [BI A’s] opinion” demonstrated that it “ eng ag ed in the appropr iate re view for clea r er ror [as t o t h e I J ’s fa ctual dete rminations] ” and a de novo re view whe n applying those fac ts to the applicable burden of

proof. Preldakaj , 252 F. App’ x at 84; 8 C.F. R. § 1003.1(d)( 3)(ii) (“ The [BIA] may revie w questions of law, discr etion, and judgment and all other issues in appe als from de cisionsNo. 09-3478

Nasser v. Holder

W e d ef er t o t h i s i n t er

p re t at i o n , un l es s “p l ai n l y

erro n eo u s o r i n co n s i s t en t wi tht h e [ l an gu age 3 of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(d)( 3)].” Auer v. R obbins , 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nasser also argues t hat t he BI A vi olated his due process rights by eng ag ing in de novo fa ct 4 finding . As previously

discussed, the BIA did not eng ag e in imprope r fac t finding. Mor eover , the g ener al “c lear ly

err oneous” standard is constituti onal eve n wher e the r eviewingbody “discove rs that some of the f

act- finder’ s conclusions wer e er roneous.” Assi v. Gonzales , 19 3 F . App ’x 45 6, 46 3 ( 6th Cir. 2006). - 6 - o f [I Js] d e n o v o.”); Ma t ter of A-S-B , 24 I &NDec . 493, 497 (B I A 2008) (interpr eting 8 C.F.R. § 3 1003.3(d)( 3) to requir e that the B I A re view whe ther a n applicant has met his burden of pr oof under a de novo sta

ndard)
. 4 B. Withh oldin g of Rem oval 1. Stand ard of Review “[W e] review[] the decision of the B I A wher e, as he re, it has r ender ed its own opinion.” Kou lib aly v. Muk asey , 541 F.3d 613, 619 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (citing An ssa ri- Gh arac he dagh yv . I NS , 245 F.3d 512, 513 (6th Cir. 2000))
. “[ W ] e uphold a B I A deter mination as long a s it is s upported by rea sonable, substantial, and probative evidenc e on the r ecor d considere d as a whole.” Ma rk u v . A sh c ro

ft , 380 F.3d 982, 986 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). “Arevie wing court should not reve rse simply beca use it is convince d that it would have dec ided the ca se diffe rently .” Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 925-26 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and c itation omit ted). Rather, to re verse , we must find that the evide nce c ompels a contra ry conclusion. Id.No. 09-3478

Nasser v. Holder

Be cause Nasser

failed to de monstrate “pe rsec ution,” we ne ed not dec ide whethe r he 5 sufficie ntly

connec ted his difficu l t i es i n finding employ ment in L ebanon to one of five statutory g ro un ds , a s r e qu ir e d b y

the Ac t. Thus , we do no t a dd re ss h is i mpute d p oli tic a l op ini on argume nt. - 7 - 2. Mer its “To pre vail on a petition for withholding of re moval under the I NA [or] t he CAT, an a lien must show that there is a clear probability that [he] would be subjec t to persec ution [ on acc ount of
rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion], for the I NA, or to torture, f

or the CAT.” Koulji nski v. Keisler , 505 F.3d 534, 544 (6th Cir
. 2 0 0 7 ) ( i nterna l quotation marks and c itation omit ted). “The regulations define the ‘ clea r proba bility ’ standar d as
re qu ir ingtha

t ‘ [a]n a pp lic ant who ha s no t su ff

e re d pa st pe rs e c uti on . . . e sta bli shtha t it is m or e lik e ly than not’ that [he] would be persec uted or tortured on the ba sis of one of the pr otected grounds upon [hi s] return.” Jin Zhou Zheng v. Holder , 3 39 F
. Ap p’ x 5 92 , 59 5 (6 th Cir
. 20 09 ) ( qu oti ng8 C. F .R. § 1208.16(b)( 2)).

i. Withh oldin g Under the Ac t Unde r the I

NA, whe n an applica

nt “is determined to have suff ere d past perse cution in the proposed c ountry

of re moval on acc ount of [a protecte d g round],” a r e b utta ble pre sumption of future 5 perse cution arises. 8 C.F .R. § 208.16(b)(1) (i ). P erse cution consists of “more than a f ew isolated inc ide nts of

ve rb a l ha

ra ssm e nt o r i nti mid ation, un a c c omp anie d b y any ph y sic a l pu

nis hme nt, infliction of harm, or sig nificant de privation of liberty .” Mikhailev itch v. I.N.S. , 146 F.3d 384, 390 (6 th C ir . 1 99 8) . A lth ou g h e c on omi c pe rs e c uti on may c on sti tut e pa st p e rse c uti on , N a sse r m us t d em o n s t rate that he endur ed a “ deliberate impositi on of seve re e conomic disadva ntag e or theNo. 09-3478

Nasser v. Holder

- 8 - deprivation of liberty , food, hous i n g, em ploy ment, or other e ssentials of life.” Scave nger v. Mukase y , 313 F. App’ x 816, 818 (6th Cir. 2008) (interna l quota t i on marks and c itation omit ted). An applica

nt’s own ac tions—for example, his refusa l t o co n s i d er a lternate ty pes of employ ment—may prec lude a finding of per secution. Id. at 819-20 (noting that petitioner “r efuse d to look into or acce pt cer

tain ty pes of employ

ment befor e she left [ her home country ]” and furthe r
rema rking that “one c annot bringa cognizable economic pe rsec ution claim merely beca use a w eak economy has under

mined one’s job prospe cts o r b ecause it has under mined one’s pr efe rre d job prospec ts”). Neither Nasser ’s forced chang e in occupation nor t he fact that Hizballah is ga ining influe nce in L e ba no n c omp e ls a

fi nd ingthat N a sse r w a s c omp le te ly un a ble to f ind a me ans of

su pp or t in his home country
. For example, N asser testified that his c ousin suppor ted his mother in his hometown with his earning s as a taxi driver. Na sser’s fam i l y also owned pr operty

in L ebanon, a

nd he had siblings who lived abr oad. It is reasona ble to assume that Na sser could have sought a ssistance fr om
one of these family members upon losing his store. Se e J aa rs v. Gonzales , 148 F. App’ x 310, 315 (6th Cir. 2005) (“ The ne wspape r ar ticles provided by petitioners do not support their asse rtions that it would be near ly

impossibl e for

them to find jobs.”). Consequently , the B I A’s con clus ion that Na sse r f a ile d to de mon str a te pa st p e rs ecut ion ba se d o n s e ve re e c on omi c de pr ivatio n w a s a
rea sonable one , and the r ecor d does not compel other wise. Simi larly , the B I A’s conclusion that Nasser f ailed to establish a c lear

probability

of future pe rs e c uti on

is n ot o ne that no rea sonable factfinde r could rea ch. Although, ec onomic deprivation that is “purposef

ul, direct, a

nd substantial” may

constitute future pe rsec ution, id., su c h is no t th e c a seNo. 09-3478

Nasser v. Holder

- 9 - here . Nasser

testified that he ha d no contac t with Hiz ballah af ter his store closed in 2000, and he ha s
no t a lleged th at H izba lla h w ou ld p ur

po se fu lly pr e ve nt h im f

ro m g e tti nga

job on his re tur n to L ebanon. Mor eover , the evidenc e of Hi z b al l ah’s gr owing streng th in L ebanon f ails to show that Hi zba lla h w ill int e rf

e re wi th N a sse r’ s jo b s e arc h. Con se qu e ntl y , th e re c or d d oe s not c omp e l a contra ry conclusion. ii. Withh oldin g Under the Tre aty I n contra st to the Act, the Tre aty require s that an applica nt establish a “pa

rticularized thre at of torture ,” Castellano-Chacon , 341 F.3d at 551, a lthough he nee d not demonstrate that the “ harm [he] fac es is based on one of the five [st atutory ] g rounds
. . . require d under the I NA.” Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 743, 751 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Substantia l ev i dence supports the BIA’s deter mination that Nasser f

ailed to establish past or f uture torture
. For the af oreme ntioned rea sons, we DENY revie w.