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

ALI M OHAM ED ALSHAM I,
Pe titione r,

v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l,
R

e sponde n t

. No. 12-73663 Age n c y No. A044-885-375

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d M a rc h 14, 2014 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : W ALLAC E a

nd GOULD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd HUC K, Se nior Distric t Judge

. *** 

# FIL E D

APR 07 2014

M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 Pa ul C . Huc k, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Florida , sitting by de signa tion.Ali M oha m e d Alsha

m i pe titions for re view o f t h e B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) decision de ny ing h is a p plic a tion for a sy l um , withholding, a n d de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C o n v en t i o n Aga i nst Torture (“ C AT” ). Alsha m i is a Ye m e ni n a tive a nd w a s a m em b er of the Ye m e n De m oc ra tic R e public ’ s Soc ia list
Pa rty (the “ Pa rty ” ). W h ile in Ye m e n, Alsha m i se rve d a s a profe ssor for the Pa rty a n d

a s a m e m be r of its e xe c u tive c om

m itte e , in whic h role he e xe c ute d the orde rs of highe r

c om m itte e s. In 1993, A lsha

m i wa s injure d i n a ba z ooka a tta c k at the hom e of his politic a lly a ct iv e unc le

. Alsha m i te stifie d tha t t

he a tta c k c a m e from a “ polic e

ve hic le ,” but he wa s una

ble to ide ntify

the a tta c k e rs. Afte r the 1993 a t ta c k, Alsha

m i

wa ite d two y e a rs, without inc ide nt, be fore m oving to t he U nite d Sta te s to work a t his fa th er ’s s u p e rm a rke t. Alsha m i re m a ine d in the Unite d Sta t e s until 2003 whe n he

re turne d to Ye m e n, w he re he g ot m a rrie d an d f at h er e d a c hild. W hile driving in
Y em en wi t h his c ousin, Alsha m i wa s injure d in a se c ond ba z ooka a tta c k. Alsh am i be lie ve s the a tta c ke rs we re m e m be rs of Ye m e n’ s gove rnm e nt s e c urity (the R e public a n Gua rd) but o ffe rs no obje c t ive te stim ony t o substa ntia te h is c la i m
. Subse que ntly , Alsha m i le ft Ye m e n a ga in without inte rfe re nc e from

the Ye m e ni gove rnm e nt. Se ve ra l y e a rs l a te r, Alsha m i wa s c onvic te d of ra

p e w hile living in C a lifornia

. He wa s se nte nc e d to six year s im prisonm e nt, a nd i n 2007, the De pa rtm e nt of
Hom e la nd Se c urity (“ DHS” ) i nitia te d re m ova l proc e e dings a ga inst Alsha m i for be ing

a n a lie n c on v i cte d o f a

n a ggra va te d fe l ony
. In 2009, the Im m igra tion Judge (“ IJ” )orde re d tha t Alsha m i be r em ove d to Ye m e n. Alsha m i a ppe a le d the IJ’ s de c ision to the B IA. The B IA a gre e d with the IJ’ s de c ision. Alsha m i the n p et i t i o n e d this c ourt for re vie w of the B IA’ s de c ision. Se e Alshami v
. Holde r , No. 10-70842. This c ourt

re m a nde d t o t

he B IA be c a

use o f a n inc o m

ple te a dm inistra

tive re c ord. O n r em and, Alsha m i file d a M otion to R e ope n a nd subm itte d a Form I-589 a pplic a tio n for Asy lum , W ithholding, a nd De fe rra l of R e m ova l b a s e d on c ha n g e d c o nditions in
Ye m e n. The B IA gra nte d the M otion to R e ope n a nd re m an de d to the IJ to a llow Alsha m i to pe rfe c t the I-589 a pplic a tion ba se d on his f ear o f b ei n g torture d upon

re turning to Ye m e n. At t h e he a ring, t

he IJ found Alsha

m i’ s te stim ony to be c re dible but he ld the re

wa s i nsuffic i e nt e vide nc e to e stab l i s h t ha t Alsha m i’ s re turn to Ye m e n would m ore like ly tha n not re sult i n Alsha

m i be ing torture d

. A lsham i a ppe a le d the IJ’ s de c ision
to t h e BI A , w h i c h a gre e d with the IJ’ s judgm e nt a n d re a soning. Alsha

m i now
pe titions the co u r t f

or re vie w of the B IA’ s de c ision. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1), a nd de ny the pe tition.
W he n re vie wing a de c ision de ny ing C A T pr o t ect ion, the c ourt a pplie s a

“ substa n tia l e vide nc e ” sta

n d ar d to the B IA a nd IJ’ s fa c tua l findings. 1 Ze haty e v
. Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1 182, 1184–8 5 ( 9 t h C ir. 2 0 06). Unde r t he s ubsta ntia l e vide nc e

1 The court reviews both decisions because the B I A “ex pressed ag r e e m e n t ” w i t h the I J ’s reasoning

. Kumar v. Holder , 728 F .3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013).sta

nda rd, “ a dm inistra

tive findings of f

act a re c o nc lusive unle ss a ny re a sona ble

a d j u d i c a t o r w o u l d b e c o m p e l l e d t o c o n c l u d e t o t h e c o n t r a r y . ”
8 U .S.C

. § 1252(b)(4)(B ); se e also I.N .S. v
. Elias-Zac arias , 5 02 U

. S

. 4 78, 483–84 (1992); Ze haty e , 453 F.3d a t 1185. Thus, the issue for t his c o urt is whe the r substa ntia l

e vide nc e e x ists to support t he B IA’ s de c i sion re

je c ting proba

b le t orture

. B a se d on the

re c o rd, we c onc lude tha t the re is substa ntia l e vide nc e to support the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t Alsha

m i ha s n ot e sta

blishe d tha t it is m ore l i k el y t ha n not he would be torture d upon his re turn to Ye m e n. Prior to the 1993 a tta c k a t his unc le ’ s hom e , Alsha m i ha d ne v e r be e n a tta c ke d, ha ra sse d, or t

hre a te ne d by t

he Ye m e ni gove rnm e nt. The re is n o e vide nc e to c om pe l

a finding tha t it wa s Alsha m i

— w ho wa s n ot p olitic a lly a c tive a t the t im e

— ra the r tha n his unc le who wa s the ta

rge t of the a tta c k. Afte r the 1993 a tta c k , Alsha

m i spe nt two

m ore y e a rs in Ye m e n, d

u ring whic h he wa s not a

tta c ke d, ha

ra s se d, or thre a t e ne d. In 1995, Alsha

m i le ft Ye m e n without inte rfe re nc e from the Y e m e ni gove rnm e n t, a nd he

wa s a dm i tte d to the Unite d Sta te s a s a le ga l pe rm a ne nt re side nt. W he n a ske d by
DHS’ s a ttorne y whe the r his “ p rim a ry re a son for le a ving a t the tim e [wa s] t o h e lp [his]
f at h e r with his store ,” Alsha m i a nswe re d, “ Ye s.” Alsha m i offe re d no te stim ony of involve m e nt in Y em en i politic s b e twe e n 1995 a n d 2003. In 2 003, he re turne d to Ye m e n without inte rfe re n c e from the gove rnm e nt. Although he wa s injure d in aba z ooka a tta c k on the trip, he offe re d no obje c tive te stim o ny t o support his be lie f tha t

the Y e m e ni gove rnm e nt wa s involve d.
No reas o nable a djudic a tor would be c o m pe lle d to c om e to a diffe re nt

c onc lusion on Alsha

m i ’ s C AT c la im tha

n did t he IJ a nd the B IA. Alsh am i h as n ot

c a rrie d his he a vy

burde n. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D

.