FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZAINAB PATRICIA FONUA ALI, No. 07-70655
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-654-688
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Zainab Patricia Fonua Ali, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
questions of law and review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ali did not
establish past persecution in Fiji based on the disruption of Ali’s education and
temporary food shortages caused by the 1987 coup in Fiji, see Nagoulko v. INS,
333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (discrimination and harassment does not
rise to the level of persecution), or the sabotage of her father’s trucks, the loss of
her father’s business, and the eviction of her grandmother by native Fijians, see
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060 (petitioner must demonstrate harms to family were part
of a pattern of persecution closely tied to petitioner to make a showing of past
persecution), even as a result of experiencing several of these events as a child, see
Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2007) (agency
must consider the age of the petitioner at the time of the past harm). Substantial
evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Ali did not demonstrate a
well-founded fear of future persecution. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d
1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (when a petitioner has not established past persecution,
the agency is entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including state
department reports, in considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated good
reason to fear future persecution). We reject Ali’s contentions that the IJ applied
2 07-70655
improper legal standards when evaluating whether she established past persecution
or otherwise demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution because the IJ
properly considered the harm to Ali’s family, Ali’s age at the time, and whether in
the absence of past persecution, Ali’s fear of future persecution was objectively
reasonable. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-62; Hernandez-Ortiz, 496 F.3d at
1045-46. Accordingly, Ali’s asylum claim fails.
Because Ali failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-70655