Case Name: Serozh NAZARI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-19
Citations: 623 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 12-73813
Parties: Serozh NAZARI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Serozh NAZARI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73813.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2015.
Filed Nov. 19, 2015.
Andre Gharibian, Law Office of Andre Gharibian Tujunga, CA, for Petitioner.
Karen L. Melnik, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Serozh Nazari, a native and citizen of Iran, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"): .its dismissal of his appeal of a removal order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Reviewing for substantial evidence the BIA's dismissal of Petitioner's appeal, Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir.2007), we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Petitioner firmly resettled in Germany, where he was granted asylum and received an unlimited residency permit.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that the harm Petitioner suffered in Germany did not rise to the level of past persecution and that Petitioner did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution or a likelihood of torture.
Petition DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.