NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
THOMA PULO, No. 06-72368 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-391-718
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 2, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACE and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MILLS,*** Senior District
Judge.
Thoma Pulo, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for
the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
judge’s ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, 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, Ornelas-
Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1055–56 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that, even if credible, Pulo
failed to demonstrate that the government was unable or unwilling to protect him
from the anonymous assailants who harmed him and his family members. See
Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that the
burden is on the applicant to show that the government is unable or unwilling to
control a non-governmental persecutor). Pulo’s claim for humanitarian asylum
fails because he did not establish past persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Accordingly, Pulo’s asylum claim was properly rejected.
Because Pulo did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows
that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Pulo’s CAT claim because
he failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
2
returned to Albania. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948–49 (9th Cir.
2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3