N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FAR IB A AM IR I, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-71989 Age n c y No. A095-635-533
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July

6, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, C LIFTON, a

nd FR IEDLAND, C i rc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Fariba

Am iri, a native of Iran a

nd c itiz e n of the Unite d Kingdom , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing he r a ppe a l of a n Im m igration Judge ’ s de nia l of he r a pplic a tion for a s y lum , withholding



# FIL ED JUL 22 2016 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).of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (C AT). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ), and we de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Ge ne ra lly , “ [o] ur re vie w is limite d to the B IA’ s de c ision whe re the B IA
c onduc ts its own re vie w of the e vide nc e and la w.” Vitug v . Holde r , 723 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th C ir. 2013). Howe ve r, whe re , a s he re , the B IA’ s “ phra sing se e m s in pa rt to sugge st tha

t it did c onduc t a

n inde pe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord, but theB IA’ s ana ly sis on there le va

nt issue s is c onfine d to a

sim ple sta te m e nt of a

c onc lusion,
we a lso look to the

IJ’ s ora l de c ision a s a

guide to wha

t la y be hind the B IA’ s c onc lusion.” Bingx u J

in v . Holde r , 748 F.3d 959, 964 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010)). W e re vie w the B IA’ s le ga l c o nc lusions denovo a n d its fa c tua l de t e rm inations, “ inc luding its finding of whe the r an a

pplic ant ha s de m onstra

te d a ‘ we ll-founde d

fe ar of pe rse c ution,’ ” for substa ntia l e vide nc e . Ghaly

v . IN S , 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th C ir. 1995). To e s ta blish tha t she ha s suffe re d pa st pe rse c ution a nd is the re fore e ligible for a s y lum , Am iri m

ust de m onstra

te : “ (1) an inc ide nt, or inc ide nts, tha t rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution; (2) tha t is on a c c ount of one of the sta tutorily -prote c te d grounds; a

nd (3) is c om

m i tte d by the gove rnm e nt or forc e s the gove rnm e nt is
e ithe r una ble or unwilling to c ontrol.” Afriy iev . Holde r , 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th C ir. 2010). Amiri, who wa s se xua lly a ssa ulte d a n d la t e r a bduc te d for se ve ra l hours 2by

a m an she m e t through a c onta c t at the Iran ia

n e m ba s sy , argue s tha

t she wa s ta rge te d a s a re sult of he r Ira nia n e thnic ity and he r sta

tus a s a we ste rniz e d Irania

n wom an in a

rom antic re lationship with a n Am e ric an m a

n . She a l so a

rgue s tha t the B ritish polic e , who did not solve the c rim e , we re una

ble or unwilling to prote c t he r. Am iri ha s provide d no e vide nc e be y o nd spe c ulat ion tha t he r a tta c k or
a bduc tion wa s m otiva

te d by a prote c te d ground. Thus, a t m ost, it is “ sim

ply not c le ar” whe the r Am iri’ s a lle ge d prote c te d sta tus “ c a use d [the a tta c ke r] to initia te the [] atta c k.” Parussimov a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 742 (9th C ir. 2009). W hile
we are sy m pathe tic to he r c irc um sta

nc e s, the re is nothing in the re c o rd tha

t

“ c o m pe ls the c onc lusion” tha

t e ithe r Am i ri’ s e thnic i ty

or he r soc ia l sta

tus wa s “ a c e ntra l m otiva

ting re a son for the atta c k.” Id. B e c a use Am iri ha s not m e t

he r burde n to show tha

t she wa s ta

rge te d ba se d on a

prote c te d ground, we ne e d not
re a c h the issue of whe the r we ste rniz e d Irania n wom e n in a

rom antic re lationship with a n Am e ric an m an m ay

c onstitute

a “ p artic u la

r soc ia l group.” Se e He nrique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ). W e a lso a gre e with theB IA that Am iri did not show tha t the B ritish polic e we re “ una

ble or unwilling”

to c ontrol thepriva

te pa rtie s re sponsiblefor Am iri’ s a ssa ult a nd a bduc tion. Se e Afriy ie , 613 F.3d a t 927. “ [W ] he n a

n a pplic ant
a tte m pts to re port pe rse c ution to the polic e or re que st prote c tion from the m , the 3a

uthoritie s’ re sponse (or la c k the re o f) to suc h re que s ts m ay provide powe rful
e vide nc e with re spe c t

to the gove rnm e nt’ s willingne ss or a b ility to prote c t the
re que s tor.” Id. a t 931. He re , both Am iri’ s te stim ony and the doc um e n ta

ry e vide nc e sugge st tha

t the B ritish polic e la

unc h e d a se rious inve stiga

t ion into Am iri’ s a ssa

ult, inc l uding fore nsic te sting of he r c lothe s a nd e le c t ronic s, m ultiple inte rvie ws with Amiri, a

nd atte m pts to pull C C T V re c ordings from the are a in whic h the a ssa

ult took plac e . M ore ove r, Am i ri c e a se d c onta c t with thepolic e two we e ks a fte r the initia l a ssa ult a n d only thre e da y s a fte r he r a

bduc tion, ha

m pe ring the i nve stiga

tion. Unde r the se c irc um sta nc e s the “ e v ide nc e sim

ply doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the [B ritish] gove rnm e nt wa s una b le or unwilling to
c ontrol” the m an who a ssa ulte d a nd a bduc te d Am iri. N

ahrv a n i v . Gonzale

s , 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th C ir. 2005). Am iri a lso ha s not de m onstra te d a re a sona ble like lihood of future pe rse c ution. “ If an

a pplic ant doe s not a sse rt pa st pe rse c ution or a n IJ doe s not find that an a pplic ant suffe re d

pa st pe rse c ution, a

n a pplic ant fe aring pe rse c ution by priva te pa rtie s will ha

ve the burde n of showing a we ll-founde d

fe a r of future pe rse c ution and t

hat re loc a tion would be

unre a sona

ble .” Afriy e , 613 F.3d a

t 936

4n.8. He re , the IJ found tha t Am iri ha s not de m o nstra te d pa st pe rse c ution, 1 and Am iri did not pre s e n t a

ny a dditiona l e vide nc e sugge sting tha t the fa c ts unde rly ing this de te rm inat ion would be diffe re nt upon he r re t

urn to the Unite d Kingdom
. Fina lly , Am iri c annot suc c e e d on e ithe r he r withholding of rem ova l c la im or he r C AT c la im . B e c a

use she wa s not a

ble to e s ta

blish e ligibility

for a sy l um , she is
una ble to sa tisfy the highe r sta

n da rd for withholding of rem ova l. Se eLanza v
. Ashc roft , 389 F.3d 917, 933 (9th C ir. 2004). M e anwhile , C AT provide s re lie f for pe titione rs who a

re a ble to show tha

t the y are m o re like ly

tha n not to betorture d in the c ountry

of re m ova l “ by

or at the instiga

tion of or with the

c onse nt or
a c quie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c ting in a n offic ia l c a

p a c ity .” Madrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 508 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting 8 C .F.R
. § 208.18(a )(1)). As disc usse d a bove , Am iri did not me e t he r burde n to show tha t the B ritish gove rnm e n t

ha d be e n una

ble or unwilling to prote c t he r a ga inst pe rse c ution. Thesa

m e fa c ts re le va

nt to tha t a na ly sis providesubsta

ntia l e vide nc e

1 Am iri a rgue d on a

ppe a l tha t the IJ found tha

t she ha d suffe re d from

pa st pe rse c ution, thus entitling her to a re b utta ble pre s um

ption of a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ut ion pursua n t to 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1). Shem isunde rsta nds the IJ’ s findings. The

IJ de te rm ine d tha

t the atta c k a ga inst Am iri, c om bine d with the a bduc tion a

nd ha ra ssm e nt she suffe re d, “ rose to the le ve l of pe rse c ution.” Howe ve r, the IJ found tha t she ha d not suffe re d from pe rse c ution a s de fine d by § 1208.13(b)(1) be c a

u s e she ha d not de m onstra te d tha t the a ssa u l t wa s m otiva

te d by a prote c te d sta

tus or tha t the B ritish gove rnm e n t wa s una ble or unwilling to he lp he r. 5for the B IA’ s c onc l usion tha t Am iri ha d

not m e t he r burde n to show a suffic ie nt gove rnm e nta l involve m e nt in or a c quie s c e nc e to torture unde r C AT. Se e , e .g., De l C id Marroquin v. Ly n c h , 2016 W L 2893386, a t *4 (9th C i r. M ay

18, 2016); Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th C ir. 2014). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

6