FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMAD IJAZ MUGHAL, No. 07-73952
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-354-808
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mohammad Ijaz Mughal, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence findings of fact, Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.4 (9th Cir.
2003), and de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d
967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
The Pakistani authorities detained and beat Mughal based on their mistaken
belief that he was someone else. Once they learned his true identity they stopped
harming him. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Mughal
failed to establish his mistreatment was on account of a protected ground. See INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). Because Mughal failed to
establish past persecution on account of a protected ground, he is not eligible for
humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B). Further, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Mughal failed to establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84.
Because Mughal has not met the standard for asylum, he necessarily cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 07-73952
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Mughal failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if
returned to Pakistan. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, we reject Mughal’s contention that the IJ erred by not requiring him
to testify in Urdu, because he stated he preferred to testify in English and an Urdu
interpreter was present at all times, and because Mughal failed to demonstrate that
an Urdu interpreter would have affected the outcome of the proceedings.
Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971-72 (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process
challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-73952