Case Name: Standford KODUAH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-27
Citations: 699 F. App'x 734
Docket Number: No. 16-70378
Parties: Standford KODUAH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 734–735

Head Matter:
Standford KODUAH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-70378
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 27, 2017
Standford Koduah, Pro Se
OIL, Sergio Sarkany, Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Standford Koduah, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo due process contentions, Cruz Rendon, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Koduah's failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution by his cousin in Ghana on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal dispute is not grounds for relief unless connected to a protected ground). Thus, we deny the petition as to Koduah's asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of Koduah's CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Ghana. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
We reject Koduah's contention that the agency violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000); Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (requirements for knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.