NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 11a0378n.06 No. 10-3347 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

OMAR I Z Z AT GHA

NI M, P etitioner ,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O N PETI TI ON FOR REV I E W O F A DECI SI ON OF THE B OARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

O P I N I O N

Before: M OORE an d GIBBONS, Circuit Jud ges; BORMA N, Distric t Judge. * KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circuit Judge. Omar I zz at Ghanim petitions this court for revie w of the order of the Boa rd of I mmigration Appea ls (“B I A”) dismiss ing his appea l of the I mmigration Judge ’s (“I J ”) denial of his a pplication for asy lum, withholding of re moval under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (“I NA”) , and protec tion u n d er t h e Convention Ag ainst Torture (“CAT” ). Ghanim argues that the BI A err ed in concluding th at (1) he waived the issue of

corr oboration, (2) it is rea sonable to expect him to reloc ate safe ly within the Palestinian Terr itories, 1

The Honora

ble Paul D. Bor

m an , Un ited States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. The I J order ed Ghanim remove d to “Palestine or I srae l in the alternative.” Administrative 1 Record (“A .R.”) at 81 (Oc t. 4, 2007 Hr’g Tr. at 5). As we did in Abudaya v. Holder , 393 F. App’x 275, 276 n.1 (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished decision), “[w]e adopt the terminolog y of t h e U.S. Depa rtment of State most commonly used reg arding the West Ba nk and the Gaza Strip and ref er to the ar ea at issue as the Palestinian Ter ritories.”No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r

and (3) he had not established a clea r p ro b ab i l i ty of torture if he returne d to the Palestinian Terr itories. Be cause the evidenc e does not compel the contra ry conclusions that Ghanim asser ts, we DENY his petition for review

.

I. BACKG ROUND & P ROCEDURAL HISTORY Ghanim i s a twenty -five- y ear -old native of the Palestinian Terr itories. He was born i n the village of Silt al Thahe r in the J enin are a of the West Ba nk, wher e his family still lives. I n J anuar y 2006, Ghanim was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigra nt student to attend the University of Texas at Arling ton. When Ghanim failed to continue classes, the I mmigration and Natura liz ation Service serve d him on J uly 11, 2007, with a notice to appe ar f or fa ilure to maintain the conditions of his n o n i mmigra

nt status. I

NA § 237(a) (1)( C)(i). Ghanim, throug h counsel, conce ded

remova bility but soug ht asy lum, withholding of remova l under the I NA, a n d p ro t ection under the CAT. At an Aug ust 19, 2008 merits hear ing reg arding his asy lum and withholding claims, Ghanim testified as follows. When he was in high school, Ghanim would g o to the roof of his family ’s house
to study for his examinations beca use hi s house was small and he had a larg e family

. The roof of Ghanim’s house, howeve r, provided a g ood view of a place used by the al-Aqsa Marty rs Br iga de (the “B rig ade” ), a “a g roup of West Ba nk milit ias aff

iliated with former Palestinian leade r Yasir Ara fat’s al-F atah fac tion” and rec og nized by the U.S. Depa rtment of State as a fore ign terror ist org anization. Administrative Record (“A .R.”) at 228 (Council on F o reig n Relations 2005 Ba ckg rounder on the AlAqsa Marty

rs Br iga des). On four occa sions, members of the Br iga de, with their fac es cover ed and

2No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r

car rying g uns, threa tened to kill Ghanim if he continued to sit on the roof beca use they thought that Ghanim was spy ing on the g roup on behalf of I srae l. The fifth time, they pointed a g un in Ghanim’s fac e while threa tening him. Ghanim stopped g oing to his roof to study afte r this fifth time; he was

scar ed and it wa s close to his final examination. On J uly 25, 2004, Ghanim was watching television with his brothers when four members of the Br iga de came to his home, took him outside, cover ed his ey es, and put him in a car . The I srae li milit ary was opera

ting in the are a, and the Br iga de suspected that somebody had told the I srae li army about their place

. They drove Ghanim to an old building wher e they started to tor ture him and ask him questions about being on the top of his roof. They acc used him of taking pictures of the g roup and sending the photogr aphs to the I srae li a rmy ; they did not acce pt Ghanim’s explanation that he was study ing on the roof. The members also offe red him money in return for joi ning their g roup, but Ghanim ref

used. The Br i g ade then hit Ghanim in the head with the bottom of their rifle, and Ghanim lost consciousness. He awoke when the Br iga de threw him from their car , about 20 meters from his home. Gha

nim had been in the B rig ade’ s custody for a pproxi mately

two or three hours. During that time, the Br iga de had also cut Ghanim on the chee k, but he ref used to g o to the hospital beca use he was afr aid that the Br iga de would follow him or wait for him at the hospital and kidnap him ag ain. A priva te phy sician fr om his vil lag e ca me to his house and stitched up the c ut. Ghanim hid in his house for a pproxi mately

three wee ks while his stit ches he aled. He then left Silt al Thahe r and went to live with his aunt in the city of Nablus to study at Al Najar College

. When school started in September 2004, he studied there for two or three wee ks but beca me scar ed

3No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r

that t h e Br i gade would follow him to the college and kidnap him. During that time, he called hi s family , who told him that the Br iga de twice had come to the family ’s house to look for Ghanim. Although there were Br iga de groups in the city and on the c am p u s , h e did not have any problems while i n Nablus. He started t o apply for his st udent visa in Octobe r 2004. F or the y ear and a half afte r he stopped attending colleg e in Nablus, he moved betwee n his aunt’s house and his friend’ s house. I n 2005, Ghanim went back to Silt al Thaher to visit his family afte r Ramada

n. He was at his family ’s hous e on November 17, 2005, when the I srae li milit ary used the home to conduct an operation that resulted in one of the Br iga de leade rs being killed. Ghanim went to hide at his uncle’ s house down the street. On Dec ember 6, 2005, another g roup enter ed his family ’s home in the middle of the night. They wer e looking for Ghanim, repe ating that they wanted to kill him. They took his family outside while they fired shots up in the air and at the walls of the house. They set part of the house and the family ’s two car s on fire. Ghanim’s fathe r had a hear t at t ac k wh i l e outside, and, althoug h the family took him to the hospital afte r the g roup left, h e d i ed

. Ghanim went to his fathe r’s fu n er al , which was at his uncle’ s house. Ghanim testifed that he fea rs returning to the Palestinian Terr itories and that his family tells him that the Br iga de still comes to the family ’s house looking f or him. I n an oral decision d elivere d at the hear ing on Aug ust 19, 2008, the I J denied Ghanim’s application for asy lum, withholding of remova l under the I NA, and protec tion under the CAT. The I J first noted that Ghanim failed to obtain any corr oboration to support his testimony

. The I J stated

4No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r

that Ghanim’s “fa ilure to corr oborate cause s the Court to not g ive full probative value to his testimony beca

use, fra nkly , some of it is implausible”; howeve r, the I J also stated that he was “not g oing to find the responde nt to be completely incre dible.” A.R. at 40 (I J Op. at 8). Wit h respe ct to Ghanim’s cre dibilit y , the I J further stated, “I do not th i n k [ Gh an i m ] i s exactly ly ing, but I am

cer tainly not convince d that ever y part of his story is true. But for the rest of this decisi o n , I wi ll

assume that basica lly it is true; that he was war ned to stay off the roof, and that the I srae li army used the roof of his house to attack the terror itsts.” Id. Assuming t h is testimony as true, the I J then conclude d that, althoug h the Br iga de was “ce rtainly b rutal with [Ghanim] ,” the events did not constitute past perse cution. Id. at 40–41 (I J Op. at 8–9). L ater in its decision, the I J stated that “the fac t that [ Ghanim’s] f

amily was not ha

rmed, e ven thoug h their prope rty was, may indicate that a lAqsa was not all that anxious to kill any one at the time.” Id. at 43 (IJ Op

. at 11). The I J further noted that Ghanim’s de lay in leaving the country for a y ear and a half afte r the Br iga de thought he

was a spy “we akens the case for pa st persec ution.” Id. The I J questioned whether the Br iga de rea lly thought Ghanim wa s spy ing for I srae l,

rea soning that they would have killed Ghanim and would not have offe red him money to join their g roup. The I J also rea soned that, even if the Br iga de did believe that Ghanim was spy ing on them for I srae l and soug ht to kill him, Ghanim could be safe in other place s wi t h i n the Palestinian Terr itories. The I J noted that the Bri gad e has looked for him only at the family ’s home and that Ghanim lived safe ly with his uncle down the street from the family home, with his aunt in Nablus,

5No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r

and with his friend. The I J indicated that the potential threa t in the future from the past events would be less g iven the time that has pa ssed since the y occur red. Finally , the I J conclude d that “the rea l problem with [Ghanim’s] case is there is no nexus to

one of the five fac tors for which ref ug ee status can be gra n t ed

. ” Id

. at 42 (I J Op. at 10). The I J stated that the Br iga de believed t h at Gh an i m wa s spy ing, which the I J stated is not a political opinion. The I J rea soned that Gha nim “never

had any political opinion” and that spy ing f or I srae l “appe ars to be g etting involved in the milit ary situation which makes him a combatant, not a political person.” Id. at 43 (I J Op. at 11). T he I J thus denied Ghanim’s application for asy lum and withholding of r emoval under the I NA. The I J also denied Ghanim’s application for protec tion under the CAT, finding that Ghanim did not demonstrate that any g roup wishes to tor ture him a

nd that even if the Br iga de does wish to do so, it “is not a g roup that op er ates with the consent, acquie scenc e, or wilful blindness of the g overnme nt of P alestine or with the gover nment of I srae l.” Id. at 44 (I J Op. at 1 2 ). T h e I J stated that, althoug h there is ev i d en ce o f g ross, flag rant, or mass violations of human rig hts in the Palestinian Terr itories, Ghanim did not provide evide nce of past torture a

nd there is evidenc e that he could reloc ate safe ly

to another a

rea within the T err itories. The I J order ed Ghanim remove d to Palestine, or in the alter

native to I srae l. Gh an i m t i mely appea led the I J ’s decision, and, on Fe bruar y 24, 2010, the BI

A dismiss ed Ghanim’s appea l. I t conclude d that Ghanim failed to meet his burden of proving the events underlying his claim of past perse cution beca use he failed to prese nt corr oboration and did not alleg e

6No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r

that corr oboration was not r easona bly available

. Id. at 2 (B I A Op. at 1). The BI A ag ree d with the I J ’s finding that it is rea sonable for Ghanim to avoid perse cution by reloc ating within the Palestinian Terr itories u p o n h i s re t u rn . Id. at 3 (B I A Op. at 2). Rely ing on its conclusions reg arding

corr oboration and reloc ation, the BI A declined to addre ss the I J ’s dec ision with respe ct t o nexus. The BIA also ag ree d with the I J that Ghanim had not established that he would more likely than not be torture d upon return to Palestine. Id. Ghanim filed a timely petition for revie w, and, on May 18 , 2 0 1 0 , we g rante d Ghanim’s motion to s tay

his removal pendingdispositi on of this petition. II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of

Review When, as here , “the BIA revie ws the [I J ’s] decision and issues a separ ate opinion, rathe r than summarily aff

irming the [I J ’s] decision, we revie w the BI A’s decision as t h e fi n al ag ency deter mination. To the extent the BIA adopted the [I J ’s] rea soning, howeve r, [we] also revie w[] the [I J ’s] decision.” Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Our revie w of the I J ’s and BI

A’s fac tual finding s is limit ed by the substantial-evidenc e standard of revie w. Id. Under this de fer ential standard, w e must uphold the I J ’s and B I A’s fac tual deter minations “ unless evidenc e ‘not only supports a contra ry conclusion, but indeed compe ls it.’” Y u v. Ashcroft , 364 F.3d 700, 702–03 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Ouda v. INS , 324 F.3d 44 5 , 4 5 1 (6th Cir. 2003)). I n other words, “[ w]e defe r t o the admini strative findings of fac t except when ‘any rea so n ab le adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contra ry .’” Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 743, 749 (6th

7No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r

Cir. 2006) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B )); accord Y u , 364 F.3d at 702–0 3 (explaining that § 1252(b)( 4)(B ) “basic ally codifies the Supreme Court’s substantial evidenc e standard” in INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), which was based o n the now-repea led s tatute 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a )(4) ). “Que stions of law and constitutional questions are subject to de novo revie w, with defe renc e to the BIA’s rea sonable interpre tation of the statutes and regulations.” Lin v. Holder , 565 F.3d 971, 976 ( 6th Cir. 2009). B. Asylum The Secre tary of Homeland Security or the Attorney Gene ral has discretion to g rant asy lum
to an alien who is a “re fug ee,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)( 1)(A) , which is define d as an alien “who is unable

or unwilling to return to” his home country “bec ause of perse cution or a well-founde d fea r of p er s ecution on acc ount of rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g ro u p , o r political opinion,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42)( A). Gha nim bears the burden of establishing that he is

a “re fug ee.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) . The I J and BI A conclude d that Ghanim did not establish past p erse cution, and, beca

use Ghanim does not appea l this deter mination, he bear s the burd en o f establishing that his fea

r of perse cution is well-founde d. Id

. § 1 2 0 8

. 1 3(b)( 1). The I J and BI A conclude d that Ghanim failed to establish a well-founde d fea r of perse cution beca

use it is rea sonable to expect Ghanim to relocate within the Palestinian Terr itories to avoid perse cution. “[A]n individual who can reloc ate safe ly within his home country ordinarily cannot qualify for asy lum h er e. ” IN

S v. V entur a , 537 U.S. 12, 18 (2002). “An applicant does not have a wellfounded fea

r of perse cution if the applicant could avoid perse cution by reloc ating to another part of

8No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r

the applicant’ s country of nationality

. . . if under all the circ umstances it would be rea sonable to expect the applicant to d o so.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 2)(ii). To deter mine the rea sonablene ss of internal reloc ation, the I J “should consider, but [i s] not limit ed to considering , whether the applicant would fac e other

serious har

m in the place of

sug g ested re location; any ong oing c ivil st rife w ithin the country ; ad

mi n is tr ative, economic, or judicial infrastruc ture; g eog raphic al limit ations; and social and cultural constraints, such as ag e, g ender , hea l t h , an d s o cial and familial ties.” Id. § 1208.13(b)( 3). These fac tors, if rele vant based on the circ umstances of the individual case , “ar e not ne cessa

rily deter minative of whether it would be rea sonable for the applicant to reloc ate.” Id. Be cause Ghanim has not e stablished past perse cution and does not argue that the perse cution is by the g overnme nt or is g overnme nt-sponsored, Ghanim bear s the burden of establishing that it is not 2

rea sonable for him to reloc ate. Id. § 1208.13(b)( 3)(i)–( ii); Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder , 607 F.3d 1145, 1155 n.6 (6th Cir. 20 10); Vata v. Gonzales , 243 F. App’x 930, 939 (6th Cir. 2007) (unpublished decision).

I f the perse cution is by the g overnme nt or g overnme nt-sponsored, internal re l o cation is 2 presumed unrea sonable and the burden shifts to the g overnme nt to establish by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that reloc ation would be rea sonable. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 3)(ii). Neither the BI A nor the I J stated in its reloc ation analy sis wheth er it considere d the Br iga de’s actions as g overnme nt sponsored, although, as discussed below, the I J conclude d in the contex t of Ghanim’s CAT claim that the Br iga de “is not a g roup that operates with the consent, acquie scenc e or wilful blindness of the g overnme nt of Palestine or with the g overnme nt of I srae l.” A.R. at 44 (I J Op. at 12). Ghanim does not argue on appea l that the per secution is g overnme nt-sponsored or that the presumption of rea sonablene ss should apply

. See Vushaj v. Holder , 389 F. App’x 512, 513 n.2 (6 th Cir. 2010) (unp u b li s h e d decision) (citing Langley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 502 F.3d 475, 483 (6th Cir. 2007)) (“[B]eca use [petitioner] failed to raise the issue on this appe al, she ha s waived it.”)

. 9No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r

Ghanim argu es t h at it is unrea sonable for him to reloc ate safe ly within the Palestinian Terr itories beca

use the g eogra p h i c ar ea is small, there is ong oing civil strife, and it is difficult to trave l within the area beca use of chec kpoints. He also disputes the I J ’s and BI A’s reliance on the fac t that he previously soug ht ref ug e at his aunt’s house beca use that occur

red prior to the I srae li raid from Ghanim’s family home. Additionally , he argues that there is no rea son to believe that he could reloc ate to I srae l beca

use he did not ac tually

collaborate with I srae l. Ghanim’s arguments with respe ct to the limit ed g eog raphic are a, the ong oing civil strife, and the difficulty of trave l are proper considerations in the deter mination of whether it is rea sonable for him to reloc ate within the Palestinian Terr itories. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)( 3). These fac tors weig h ag ainst the rea sonablene ss of reloc ation; never theless, the fac tors are not nece ssarily deter minative. Id. Moreove r, even acc epting Ghanim’s argument that he stay ed with his aunt in Nablus befor e the I srae li raid, Ghanim stay ed with his uncle—down the street from his family ’s home—immediately afte r the ra id for two months befor e he c ame to the United States. Ghanim has not explained why he was able to stay safe ly with h i s uncle for that two-month period, or provided evidenc e or testimony that the Br iga de has looked for him a ny wher e other than his family ’s home. We c annot conclude that the evidenc e compels the co n cl u s i o n that Ghanim has demonstrated that it is

unrea sonable for him to reloc ate within the Palestinian Terr itories to avoid perse cution. See Fisenko

v. Holder , 336 F. App’x 504, 516–17 (6th Cir. 2009) (unpublished decision), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 2111 (2010). Acc ording ly , we cannot conclude that the evidenc e compels the conclus ion that Ghanim established a

well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution.

10No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r

Be cause we deny Ghanim’s petition for revie w on the BI A’s alterna tive holding that Ghanim did not demonstrate past p er s ec u t i o n and that it is rea sonable to expect that he could reloc ate to another are a withi n the P alestinian Ter ritories to avoid per secution, we need not addre ss the i ssue of whe ther the B I A er

red in c oncluding that Ghanim waive d the issue of c orrobor ation. 3 C. Withhold ing of

Rem oval un der the INA To qualify for withholding of remova l, Gh an im must demonstrate “that there is a clea r pro b ability ,” Singh v. Ashcroft , 398 F.3d 396, 401 (6th Cir. 2005) (interna l quotation marks omitted),

or in other words, that “it is more likel y than not,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)( 2), that he would be perse cuted on the basis of the same five g rounds nece ssary for asy lum if he is removed fr o m t h i s country

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3); Cruz-Samayoa , 607 F.3d at 1151. The burde n when se eking withholding of re m o v al is more onerous than that require d when seeking asy lum; thus beca use Ghanim failed to establish his elig ibilit y for asy lum, he nece ssarily failed to establish his elig ibilit y for withholding of re moval under the I NA. See Lin , 565 F.3d a

t 979.

We note that the administrative rec ord includes a copy of the death cer tificate for Ghanim’s 3 fathe r, which states that he died on Dec ember 6, 2005. A.R. at 184 (De ath Certifi cate ). This evidenc e is not mentioned by the I J or the BI A in their discussions of corr oboration. Additionally , beca use the BIA declined to addre ss the I J ’s conclusion with respe ct to nexus, we do not pass upon the issue here

. See Ventura , 537 U.S. at 16 (“G ener ally speaking , a court of appea ls should rema nd a case to an ag ency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in ag ency hands.”)

. We note, howeve r, as we did in the o rd er gra nting Ghanim’s motion to stay his remova l, that the I J ’s conclusion is called into question by a rec ent published decision from this Circuit, Haider v. Holder , 595 F.3d 276, 284–85 ( 6th Cir. 2010). 11No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r

D. P rote ction und er t he CAT To qualify for protection u n d er t h e CAT, Ghanim bears t he burden of establishi ng “that it is more li kely than not that he .

. . would be tortured if remove d to” t he P ales t i n i an T er ri t ories. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2). I n contra st to asy lum and withholding of remova l under the I NA, Ghanim “nee d not show that the h ar m [ h e] fa ces is based on one of the five g rounds (ra ce, relig ion, nationality , social gro u p , political opinion) require d under the I NA, but rathe r must establish a ‘par ticularized threa t of torture.’ ” Almuhtaseb , 453 F.3d at 751 (quoting Castellano-Chacon v. INS , 341 F.3d 533, 551 (6th Cir. 2003)). “The term ‘torture ’ only descr ibes ‘an extreme form of crue l and inhuman trea tment and does n o t include lesser forms of crue l, inhuman or degr ading trea tment or punishment that do not amount to t orture.’ ” Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (2))

. Ghanim relies on the Depa rtment of State’s country repor t incl u d ed i n the administrative

rec ord that rela tes the P al es t i n ian Authority ’s poor human rig hts rec ord, including poor prison 4

As we noted above, the I J conclu d ed t hat “eve n if [t he Br iga de] does wish to torture 4 [Ghanim] , that is not a g roup that opera tes with the consent, acquie scenc e or wilful blindness of the g overnme nt of Palestine or wi t h t h e go v er n m ent of I srae l.” A.R. at 44 (I J Op. at 12). The g overnme nt acknow ledg es that the Br iga de is “af filiated with a Palestinian movement led by former leade r Yasir Ara fat,” Appellee Br

. at 23 (citing A. R

. at 228 (Council on For eig n Relations 2005 Ba ckg rounder

on the Al-Aqsa

Marty rs B rig ades) ), but argues that “[t] his connec tion between [the Br iga de] and th e P al es t i nian Authority

. . . is by itself insufficient to compel the conclusion that Ghanim would be tortured by or wit h acquie scenc e of any g overnme nt official,” id. We note t hat the Council on For eig n Relations also repor ted in 2005 that “Palestinian officia ls have said most of the [Brig ade’ s] members are on the pay roll of the Palestinian Authority , often beca use they serve in both the brig ades and in one of t he fourtee n formal secur ity service s.” A.R. at 229 (Council on For eig n Relations 2005 Ba ckg rounder on the Al-Aqsa Marty rs Br iga des). Ghanim does not appea l the I J ’s finding ; never

theless we need not rely on the I J ’s finding to reject Gh an i m ’s CAT claim beca use there is substantial evidenc e supporting the I J ’s and BI A’s conclusion that Ghanim “has not shown that any

g roup wishes to torture him.” A.R. at 44 (I J Op. at 12). 12No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r conditions, arbitra

ry arr ests and prolong ed detentions, and prisoner deaths under ambig uous circ umstances. Appellant Br

. at 12 (citing A.R. at 147–48 (State Dep’ t Country Report at 25–26)). Ghanim arg

ues that he has established, based on the events cre dited as true by the I J , that “he more likely than not [wil l] suffe r a simil ar fate as those simil arly situated to him who are descr ibed” in the country repor t. Id. Rely ing on the fac tors in Almuhtaseb , 453 F.3d at 751, and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (3), the I J explained that, althoug h there is evidence of g ross, flag rant, or ma ss violations of human rig hts in the Palestinian Terr itories, Ghanim did not provide evidenc e of past torture and there is evidenc e that he could re l o ca t e s af

ely to another are a within the Terr itories. The BI A ag ree d with the I J , concluding that “eve n considering the backg round documentar y evidenc e of rec ord, [Ghanim] has

n ot established that he would more likely than not be tortured upon his return to” the Pales t i n i an Terr itories. A.R. at 3 (B I A Op. at 2) (citing I J Op. at 12). There is substantial evidenc e supporting the I J ’s and BIA’s deter

mination. The past events that the I J assumed as t ru e d o not constitute evidenc e of past torture—“ an ex t reme form of crue l and inhuman trea tment.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (2). To the extent that these events—g eog raphic ally localized at his family ’s home in Silt al Thahe r—sug g est that Ghanim has a highe r or more particula rized risk of being subject to the human rig hts violations rec og nized in the Depa rtment of State’s country repor t, that risk is lessened by the evidenc e that Ghanim could reloc ate safe ly within the Palestinian Terr itories. Take n alone, the human rig hts violations repor ted by the Depa

rtment of State do not establish that it is more likely than not that Ghanim himself would be tortured upon return to the Palestinian Terr itories. See Cruz13No. 10-3347

Ghanim v. Holde r Samayoa , 607 F.3d at 1156; Almuhtaseb , 453 F.3d at 751. We cannot conclude that the evidence compels the co n clus ion that Ghanim more likely than not would be tortured upon his return, and there fore we must reje ct his claim for pr otection under the CAT. III. CONCLUSION Be cause Ghanim does not appea l the I J ’s and BI A’s deter mination that he did not establish past perse cution and beca use the evidenc e does not compel the conclusion that Ghanim established that it is unrea sonable for him to reloc ate safe ly within the Palestinian Terr itories, Ghanim failed to establish that he qualifies for asy lum or withholding o f removal under the I NA. Ghanim’s CAT claim also fails beca

use the evidenc e does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon remova l to the Palestin i an T er ri t o ri es. Acc ording ly , we DENY Ghanim’s petition for r eview.

14