Case Name: Dervis YUKSEL, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-17
Citations: 673 F. App'x 767
Docket Number: No. 13-70561
Parties: Dervis YUKSEL, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 673
Pages: 767–767

Head Matter:
Dervis YUKSEL, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70561
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted September 14, 2016 San Francisco, California
Filed January 17, 2017
Katherine Margaret Lewis, Esquire, Attorney, Marc Van Der Hout, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Steven Kiyoto Uejio, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dervis Yuksel, a native and citizen of Turkey, petitions 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency's legal determinations de novo, and factual findings for substantial evidence. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009).
Yuksel argues that the immigration judge erred by deeming his cousin's affidavit irrelevant on the grounds that Yuk-sel's testimony about his own activities and experiences had been found not to be credible. But the BIA did consider the cousin's affidavit, along with the other documentary evidence offered by petitioner, and substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Yuksel did not show an individualized risk of persecution or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic Kurds in Turkey. See id. at 1060, 1066. The evidence does not compel the conclusion that there is systemic persecution of this ethnic minority in Turkey, See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2007), or that it is more likely than not that Yuksel will be tortured if he returns to Turkey, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68 (citing Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001)). Finally, we agree with the BIA that Yuksel did not establish that he was denied a fair hearing. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 925 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.