Case Name: Lassaad BENHASSINE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-14
Citations: 375 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 06-70514
Parties: Lassaad BENHASSINE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 777–777

Head Matter:
Lassaad BENHASSINE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70514.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 14, 2010.
Amos Lawrence, Esq., Elias Z. Shamieh, Esq., Law Offices of Elias Z. Shamieh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Patty M. Stemler, Esq., San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Appellate Section/Criminal Division, Daniel Steven Goodman, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lassaad Benhassine, native and citizen of Tunisia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision ("IJ") denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.1996), we deny the petition for review.
Benhassine fears persecution in Tunisia on account of his refusal to shave his beard. Substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of withholding of removal because the harm Benhassine fears he may suffer is too speculative and he does not establish it is more likely than not he will be persecuted. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.