Case Name: Andrew SAWBOH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-27
Citations: 540 F. App'x 690
Docket Number: No. 09-70916
Parties: Andrew SAWBOH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 690–691

Head Matter:
Andrew SAWBOH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70916.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2013.
Filed Sept. 27, 2013.
Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Robert J. Timlin, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Andrew Sawboh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and review for substantial evidence. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.2003). As the BIA's holdings regarding country conditions are nearly identical to those of the IJ, "we treat the IJ's statement of reasons as the BIA's and review its decision." Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting Gonzalez v. INS, 82 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir.1996)). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of withholding of removal based on changed country conditions. The IJ provided an individualized analysis of Saw-boh's situation and rationally construed the country reports in the record, which stated that conditions have improved in Liberia since Charles Taylor's regime was no longer in power, and that persecution by the government on account of political opinion and ethnic group has greatly diminished, if not disappeared. See Kumar v. INS, 204 F.3d 931, 934 (9th Cir.2000); Kazlauskas v. INS, 46 F.3d 902, 906 (9th Cir.1995) (U.S. Department of State country reports are "the most appropriate and perhaps the best resource for information on political situations in foreign nations" (quoting Rojas v. INS, 937 F.2d 186, 190 n. 1 (5th Cir.1991))). Therefore, accepting Saw-boh's factual contentions as true, substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that changed country conditions indicate that Sawboh no longer has a well-founded fear of future persecution in Liberia. See id.
The IJ's finding of changed country conditions also supports the denial of Saw-boh's CAT claim. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir.2004) (finding no CAT eligibility where most of the government violence against stateless Palestinians had ended).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.