Case Name: Ibrahim NAOFAL, a.k.a. Ibrahim Noufal, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MURASEY, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-19
Citations: 444 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 08-71852
Parties: Ibrahim NAOFAL, a.k.a. Ibrahim Noufal, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MURASEY, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 146–147

Head Matter:
Ibrahim NAOFAL, a.k.a. Ibrahim Noufal, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MURASEY, Respondent.
No. 08-71852.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 19, 2011.
Marc Jason Wigul, Law Offices of Marc J. Wigul, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
Jesse Lloyd Busen, Nehal Kamani, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Ibrahim Naofal, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 788, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Naofal failed to demonstrate the beating he endured was on account of a protected ground, including his religion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (to reverse the agency's finding "we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it") (emphasis in original); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir.2009) ("[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent 'one central reason' for an asylum applicant's persecution"). Accordingly, Nao-fal's withholding of removal claim fails. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.