Case Name: Hamimu MUSSA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-21
Citations: 267 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 05-70751
Parties: Hamimu MUSSA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 637–638

Head Matter:
Hamimu MUSSA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70751.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Sept. 28, 2007.
Filed Feb. 21, 2008.
Susan Rossiter, Porland, OR, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Fredric L. Weinhouse, Portland, OR, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hamimu Mussa, a Rwandan national, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA correctly concluded that Mussa failed to establish that he was subject to past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution even if his testimony is assumed to be credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
Mussa admits that he did not personally suffer persecution. The hardships his family experienced in Rwanda may have amounted to persecution, but the evidence does not compel a conclusion that it was on account of his political views. See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir.1991). Mussa was working at sea as a crewman when his family experienced them alleged hardships. The death threat communicated by soldiers to Mussa's wife was prompted by her efforts to keep the house, not by Mussa's political views. There was no evidence that the military's theft of his wife's minivan or his wife's disappearance had any relationship to his political views. According to his own testimony, he lived in Rwanda for over a year while politically active in support of its King and suffered no retribution. Furthermore, Mussa's children and father-in-law remain behind in Rwanda unharmed. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001).
The petition for review is DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.