NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAWOOD AHMED DAWOOD 

ABDALLA, et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-70035

Agency Nos. A208-444-354 

A208-444-355 

A209-049-652 

A209-049-654 

A209-049-655 

A209-049-656 

A209-049-657 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 8, 2020**

Portland, Oregon

Before: WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BATTAGLIA,***

District Judge.

Dawood Ahmed Dawood Abdalla, his wife Jehad Hussein Mansour Abu 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge for 

the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Page 2 of 3

 

Hmaid, and their five children (“Petitioners”), citizens of Jordan, petition for review 

of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal 

from the order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying an application for asylum and

withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).

1 We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition.

We review the administrative findings of fact for substantial evidence. Zetino 

v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). “Under this standard, the petition 

for review must be denied if the BIA’s determination is ‘supported by reasonable, 

substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’” Id.

(quoting INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)).

The Attorney General may grant asylum to a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(A); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a). A “refugee” is an individual who is 

“unable or unwilling to return to” his or her country “because of persecution or a 

well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). The applicant must establish either past 

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily1 The children are derivatives of their parents’ applications for asylum, see 8 

U.S.C.§ 1158(b)(3)(A), (B); 8 C.F.R.§ 1208.21(a), (c), but there is no derivative 

status for withholding of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16; 

see also Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1069 n.2, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2000).
Page 3 of 3

 

protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1), (2). An application for asylum is 

deemed to constitute an application for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1231(b)(3)(A). See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(b); see also INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 420 

n.13 (1984). The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than the wellfounded fear standard for asylum, so an applicant who fails to establish his or her 

eligibility for asylum necessarily fails to establish eligibility for withholding of 

removal. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006); Farah v. 

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the agency’s 

determination that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof for asylum and 

withholding of removal. The evidence provided by Petitioners regarding past 

persecution—not having been able to secure government jobs that afforded better 

pay and benefits, being rejected from the Jordanian military, various and unrelated 

physical altercations, and paying higher tariffs—simply do not rise to the extreme 

level of persecution. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177–78 (9th Cir. 

2004). Petitioners also failed to establish the requisite individualized risk of future 

persecution in the country, as they only presented evidence that they were members 

of a disfavored group in Jordan. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th 

Cir. 2009). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.