United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 06-1065
HANY ATTIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Torruella, Lipez, and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Saher J. Macarius, Audrey Botros and Law Offices of Saher J.
Macarius on brief for petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J.
Scadron, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, and Mary Strimel, Trial Attorney,
United States Department of Justice, on brief for respondent.
February 16, 2007
Per Curiam. Hany Attia is a Coptic Christian and a
native and citizen of Egypt. When placed in removal proceedings,
Attia sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Attia maintained that he had
been persecuted in his native Egypt on account of his religion, and
that the persecution would continue if he were returned there. The
immigration judge (IJ) denied relief on the grounds that the
harassment and discrimination that Attia experienced in Egypt was
not severe enough to constitute persecution, and that there was no
indication that he would be persecuted if he returned. The Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision without
opinion, and Attia filed this petition for review.1
We review the BIA's decisions under the "substantial
evidence" standard, which means we will uphold the decision if it
is "supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on
the record considered as a whole." Carcamo-Recinos v. Ashcroft,
389 F.3d 253, 256 (1st Cir. 2004)(internal citation and quotation
omitted). This is a deferential standard, and we will reverse the
BIA only if the evidence compels that result. Id. Where, as here,
the BIA summarily affirms the IJ's decision, we review the IJ's
decision. See id. at 257.
1
Attia makes no specific argument in support of his CAT claim, and
we deem it waived.
-2-
A petitioner can show that he is entitled to asylum by
demonstrating past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of his race, religion, nationality,
political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Id.
at 257. To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution,
the petitioner must show that his fear is both genuine and
objectively reasonable. Toloza-Jimenez v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 155,
161 (1st Cir. 2006). To constitute persecution, the alleged
mistreatment must extend beyond harassment, unpleasantness, and
basic suffering. See Topalli v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 128, 133 (1st
Cir. 2005); see also Bocova v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 257, 263 (1st
Cir. 2005)(finding of persecution more likely if mistreatment is
systematic rather than a series of isolated incidents).
The IJ did not make a specific credibility finding, but
rather accepted Attia's account of his experiences. Attia, who
came to the United States in 2001, testified regarding various acts
of discrimination that he had experienced as a Christian growing up
in a predominately Muslim society. Notably, he recounted that his
teachers had belittled his religion and struck him, and that a
distant relative (a priest) and his family had been killed when the
relative attempted to build a church on land adjoining the property
of an influential Muslim military officer. Attia also recounted
two attacks upon himself. The first occurred in 1991, when he was
escorting a group of children to religious training. Attia stated
-3-
that an elderly (but large) Muslim man approached him, insulted
Attia's religion, and then beat him in front of the children. The
second incident occurred in 2000. Attia testified that he was
baking sacramental bread in a church bakery, when Muslim merchants,
angered by the heat from the bakery coming into their stores,
repeatedly attacked him. Attia was not significantly injured in
either incident. Attia also testified that he had previously come
to the United States in 2000, but returned to Egypt to be with his
family. Regarding his immediate family, all of whom are also
practicing Coptic Christians, he stated that his father serves as
the head of taxation for the Egyptian government and that both his
sisters work as accountants in Egypt.
The IJ's conclusion that Attia did not suffer past
persecution is supported by substantial evidence. Although Attia
experienced two altercations in a nine year period and a general
climate of discrimination, this does not suffice. See Awad v.
Gonzales, 463 F.3d 73, 76 (1st Cir. 2006)(childhood bullying, being
slapped by an officer during military service, seeing
discrimination against Christians, and learning a friend's sister
had been sexually assaulted by Muslims and forced to convert to
Islam did not amount to persecution). Indeed, worse mistreatment
has been found not to amount to persecution. See, e.g., Topalli,
417 F.3d at 132 (seven arrests accompanied by brief detentions and
beatings over two year period); Bocova, 412 F.3d at 263 (two
-4-
beatings by the police, accompanied by death threats, over
approximately two year period); Nelson v. INS, 232 F.3d 258, 264
(1st Cir. 2000)(three brief incarcerations in solitary confinement,
physical abuse during each incarceration, along with surveillance
and harassment).
The IJ's conclusion that Attia failed to show a
likelihood of future persecution is also supported by substantial
evidence. As we have recently noted, religious tolerance has
improved somewhat in Egypt. See Awad, 463 F.3d at 77. Moreover,
Attia's claim is significantly undermined by the fact that he
willingly returned to Egypt after his earlier trip to the United
States and that members of his immediate family continue live in
Egypt, practice their faith, and work in the government and the
professions without incident. See generally Awad, 463 F.3d at 77
(two returns to Egypt after international travel); Khalil v.
Ashcroft, 337 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir. 2003) (wealthy and high profile
family members live in Egypt without incident).
Because Attia has failed to meet the more forgiving
asylum standard, he necessarily cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal. See Pan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 60, 63 (1st
Cir. 2006).2
2
Attia also alludes to a possible due process claim based upon the
alleged inadequacy of the transcript of the proceeding before the
IJ. But because he fails to argue that he has met the requirements
for such a claim, see Kheireddine v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 80, 83-87
(1st Cir. 2005), any such claim is forfeited.
-5-
The petition for review is denied.
-6-