United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 07-2819

RAOUF SOLIMAN ABDELMALEK, MOFIDA SAMWAIL SALIB,

PETER RAOUF SOLIMAN

Petitioners,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER

OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Before

Howard, Selya, and Stahl,

Circuit Judges.

Raja H. Wakim on brief for petitioners.

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, James

A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Vanessa O. Lefort,

Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for

respondent.

August 25, 2008
Abdelmalek's wife, Mofida Samwail Salib, and his son, Peter 1

Raouf Soliman, both also natives and citizens of Egypt, are

derivative applicants for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the CAT. Petitioner claims that his other child,

a daughter, was targeted by Muslim extremists in 1998, fled to the

United States, and was subsequently granted asylum.

Abdelmalek's wife and son left for the United States shortly 2

before the building collapsed and have remained in the U.S. ever

-2-

STAHL, Circuit Judge. The Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) adopted and affirmed an Immigration Judge's (IJ's) decision

denying Raouf Soliman Abdelmalek's claims for asylum, withholding 1

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). Abdelmalek, a native and citizen of Egypt, now petitions

this court for a review of the BIA's denial of his claims. We deny

the petition for review.

I. BACKGROUND

Abdelmalek and his family are Coptic Christians who hail

from Alexandria, Egypt. Abdelmalek is a medical doctor with a

specialization in ear, nose, and throat care. He graduated from a

government-run medical school in 1975 and had worked in Egypt for

both a government hospital and a private, Christian hospital.

Although Abdelmalek did allude to being "mistreated" during medical

school, the core problems that seem to motivate this application

for asylum are of a more recent vintage. Abdelmalek's wife owned

an apartment building, which collapsed in June 2000, killing a

number of Muslim tenants. At the time of the collapse, both

Abdelmalek and his wife were out of the country. When Abdelmalek 2
since. Abdelmalek himself visited the United States twice during

this time but returned to Egypt after each visit; he was admitted

on a B-2 (tourist) visa on October 1, 2000 and again on May 29,

2001. Mrs. Salib filed an affirmative application for asylum and

withholding of removal on June 7, 2001, on behalf of herself and

her son, Peter. On July 7, 2004, an immigration judge granted Mrs.

Salib's motion to consolidate her case with her husband's case.

There is some discrepancy in the record regarding whether 3

Abdelmalek contacted the police. When testifying, Abdelmalek did

not initially mention that he had contacted the police, and only

volunteered the information that he had contacted the police after

the first incident upon questioning by the IJ. There is also some

indication that Abdelmalek initially told the asylum officer that

he had not contacted the police because they would be of no

assistance to a Christian, although in his oral testimony

Abdelmalek maintained that was a misunderstanding.

-3-

returned to work in Egypt in January 2002, he claimed that he was

harassed a number of times by Muslims who apparently blamed

Abdelmalek's family for the disaster. According to Abdelmalek, he

was visited at work on about ten occasions by Muslim individuals

who threatened his family, pressured him to convert to Islam, and

verbally abused and, on at least one occasion, pushed him.

Abelmalek claimed that he contacted the police for assistance but

they were not responsive.3

As a result of this harassment, Abdelmalek maintains that

he fled Egypt, fearing for his safety. He entered the United

States legally on or about May 30, 2002, as a non-immigrant visitor

with authorization to remain until November 29, 2002. On May 16,

2003, Abdelmalek applied for asylum and withholding of removal.

The Department of Homeland Security subsequently initiated removal

proceedings against Abdelmalek, Mrs. Salib, and their son. At
-4-

hearings before an immigration judge, all three conceded

removability but maintained that they were entitled to relief in

the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

the CAT.

At the merits hearing, at which Abdelmalek testified but

his wife did not, the IJ noted that Abdelmalek's testimony lacked

corroborative detail and was somewhat inconsistent. Based on these

factors, the IJ stated that she was "unable to make a positive

credibility finding in this case." Stating that even if she were

to accept Abdelmalek's testimony as true, the IJ determined that

the petitioner failed to establish either past persecution or a

well-founded fear of future persecution. In support of this

determination, the IJ pointed to the evidence that Abdelmalek came

from a privileged background in Egypt, graduated from a governmentrun medical school, and had a successful career as a medical

doctor, including working for a government hospital. Additionally,

Abdelmalek had traveled to the United States on previous occasions

and had returned to Egypt, which the IJ reasoned is hardly the

conduct of a man who fears persecution upon his return. Finally,

the IJ noted that Abdelmalek had failed to prove that he could not

relocate elsewhere in Egypt to avoid the alleged persecution.

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision. The BIA

agreed with the IJ's adverse credibility determination, calling

Abdelmalek's testimony "inconsistent and vague." Even if
-5-

Abdelmalek's testimony were considered credible, the BIA agreed

with the IJ's finding that Abdelmalek failed to proffer sufficient

evidence of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future

persecution.

II. ANALYSIS

We review a BIA decision using a "substantial evidence"

standard, affirming the decision if it is "supported by reasonable,

substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a

whole." Attia v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 21, 23 (1st Cir. 2007) (per

curiam) (internal citations omitted). Where, as here, the Board

adopts the immigration judge's ruling but also engages in

discussion of its own, we review both decisions. Lin v. Mukasey,

No. 07-2301, 2008 WL 1994969, at *3 (1st. Cir. May 8, 2008).

As an initial matter, we turn to the IJ's determination

that Abdelmalek was not credible. This finding is "conclusive

unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to

the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Lopez de

Hincapie v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 213, 218 (1st Cir. 2007). Although

that standard is deferential, the IJ must provide a "specific,

cogent, and supportable explanation for rejecting an alien's

testimony." Teng v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir.

2008)(internal citations omitted). Here, the IJ delivered a

lengthy oral decision, detailing her doubts as to Abdelmalek's

credibility and veracity with some care. The IJ pointed to the
-6-

fact that Abdelmalek's account of being threatened at work was very

light on corroborative detail, as was his account of reporting the

incidents to the police and the police reaction. The IJ also

highlighted several discrepancies within Abdelmalek's testimony,

particularly with regard to whether or not he reported the

purported harassment at work to the police. Additionally,

Abdelmalek was not able to offer any documentary evidence to

corroborate his vague oral testimony about the events that he

claimed amounted to persecution, and his wife did not testify to

buttress his account. The IJ also implied that Abdelmalek may have

other reasons for wanting to remain in the United States, pointing

to some confusion in the record over whether his son is in school

here, and whether his family is under investigation in Egypt

because of the building collapse. Overall, the record hardly

compels a favorable credibility determination.

Even if Abdelmalek's testimony were deemed credible,

however, the IJ's conclusion that Abdelmalek failed to demonstrate

past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution is

supported by substantial evidence. In order to be entitled to

asylum, a petitioner must demonstrate that he has been subjected to

past persecution or that he harbors a well-founded fear of future

persecution on account of his race, religion, nationality,

political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Carcamo-Recinos v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 253, 257 (1st Cir. 2004). To
-7-

establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, the petitioner

must show that his fear is both genuine and objectively reasonable.

Id. "To qualify as persecution, a person's experience must rise

above unpleasantness, harassment, and even basic suffering."

Jorgji v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 53, 57 (1st Cir. 2008)(internal

citations omitted). Additionally, a petitioner must show that the

state participated in or at least acquiesced in the alleged acts of

persecution. Id.

It is never a pleasant task to attempt to quantify an

individual's suffering and measure it against the suffering of

others, but it must be remarked that this court has recently denied

petitions for review filed by other Egyptian Copts who suffered

mistreatment at least equal to, if not greater than, that allegedly

suffered by Abdelmalek. See generally Malek v. Mukasey, No. 07-

1851, 2008 WL 1704157 (1st Cir. Apr. 14, 2008); Hana v. Gonzales,

503 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2007); Attia, 477 F.3d at 24. A series of

somewhat vague verbal threats, seemingly unaccompanied by any

significant physical abuse and any government involvement or

acquiescence, simply does not rise to the level of persecution in

these circumstances. See Attia, 477 F.3d at 24 (two beatings over

the course of nine years and general climate of discrimination does

not constitute past persecution); Awad v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 73, 75

(1st Cir. 2006)(childhood bullying, being slapped by an officer

during military service, seeing discrimination against Christians,
-8-

and learning a friend's sister had been sexually assaulted by

Muslims and forced to convert to Islam does not constitute past

persecution). We do not lend particular weight to the IJ's

observation that Abdelmalek came from a "privileged background" and

was "financially extremely solvent," as the very financial success

of a minority group may be an additional motivator in targeting the

group for persecution. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that

Abdelmalek was able to graduate from a government-run medical

school and work at a government-run hospital, undercutting his

argument that the government is unwilling to deploy its resources

to assist Christians.

Furthermore, Abdelmalek's claimed fear of future

persecution "is significantly undermined by the fact that he

willingly returned to Egypt after his earlier trip to the United

States." Attia, 477 F.3d at 24; see also Awad, 463 F.3d at 76.

And Abdelmalek failed to prove that he could not avoid any

potential future persecution by simply relocating elsewhere in

Egypt, where the locals would know nothing about the collapsed

building. See Tendean v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 8, 11 (1st Cir.

2007)(explaining that "the possibility of internal relocation

negates any presumption of eligibility . . . based on past

persecution").

The government maintains that this court lacks

jurisdiction to review Abdelmalek's claims for withholding of
-9-

removal and protection under the CAT, because he did not challenge

the denial of those claims in his appeal to the BIA. See Sunoto v.

Gonzales, 504 F.3d 56, 59 (1st Cir. 2007)("A petitioner who fails

to present a claim to the BIA has failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies on that issue, and we consequently lack

jurisdiction to review the claim."). It is true that Abdelmalek's

BIA appeal brief did not mention his withholding of removal or CAT

claims; however, the BIA did review those portions of the IJ's

decision as well, and Abdelmalek does raise those issues in his

petition for judicial review before this court. Nevertheless, even

if we were to apply the exhaustion of remedies standard generously,

see id., and review the claims, we would deny them on the merits.

Because Abdelmalek has failed to establish that he is entitled to

asylum, he necessarily fails to meet the higher standard for

withholding of removal. Segran v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.

2007). Regarding Abdelmalek's CAT claim, we find nothing in the

record that would compel the conclusion that it is more likely than

not that Abdelmalek would be tortured if he were to return to

Egypt. See id.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Abdelmalek's petition for

review is DENIED.