Case Name: Ali MOHAMMED NASIM, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. Mohammed Nasim Ali, Petitioner, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-14
Citations: 103 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: Nos. 02-73977, 03-71782
Parties: Ali MOHAMMED NASIM, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. Mohammed Nasim Ali, Petitioner, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 267–267

Head Matter:
Ali MOHAMMED NASIM, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. Mohammed Nasim Ali, Petitioner, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 02-73977, 03-71782.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2004.
Decided July 14, 2004.
James G. Roche, Law Offices of James G. Roche, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq. Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Perry, Esq., Margaret K. Taylor, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, Senior District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mohammed Nasim Ai petitions for review of the denial of his claims for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1150a, and we deny the petition.
Even if credible, and even if he had adequately demonstrated past persecution on a protected ground, substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge's finding that the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution has been rebutted by changed country conditions. Nasim also has failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum on the basis of past persecution. See Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056,1062 (9th Cir.1993).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.