FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAJI DRAMMEH, No. 08-75213
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-642-949
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Haji Drammeh, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in
part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and
withholding of removal based upon changed country conditions because, even if
Drammeh established past persecution, the record reflects that conditions in Sierra
Leone have changed such that Drammeh no longer has a well-founded fear of
future persecution by members of the Revolutionary United Front (“RUF”). See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A); see also Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1286-87. We reject
Drammeh’s contention the agency failed to consider his expert’s evidence. See
Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must
overcome the presumption that the agency reviewed the evidence).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Drammeh failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured in Sierra
Leone. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1288-89.
The record supports the BIA’s denial of Drammeh’s humanitarian asylum
claim under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B) because he failed to establish a
reasonable possibility of other serious harm if removed to Sierra Leone. See
Marcu v. INS, 147 F.3d 1078, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 1998) (BIA did not err in denying
2 08-75213
humanitarian asylum where its opinion demonstrates that it “heard the claim,
considered the evidence, and decided against [the petitioner].”)
However, the BIA erred in failing to consider whether, in addition to his
detention and beating by the RUF, Drammeh provided compelling reasons for
being unwilling or unable to return to Sierra Leone based on the deaths of his
parents, the disappearance of his sister, and the destruction of his home. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A); see also Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1287. Accordingly, we
grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this disposition. See Sowe, 538 F.3d at 1287. In light of our disposition, we do not
address Drammeh’s constitutional challenges to the BIA’s standards for
humanitarian asylum.
The parties shall each bear their own costs on this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 08-75213