FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HIFIG KILZI-MARDIK, No. 08-72280
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-928-423
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Hifig Kilzi-Mardik, a native of Lebanon and citizen of Venezuela, 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
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th
Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination
of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
We reject Kilzi-Mardik’s contention that he suffered harm on account of his
ethnicity and membership in a particular social group. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that he failed to demonstrate a nexus between past or
feared future harm and a protected ground. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d
1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner presented no evidence he was victimized on
account of his race as opposed to the perpetrators’ “observation that he carried a
cell phone and a watch”); Li v. INS, 92 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 1996) (individuals
with “low economic status” are not a particular social group). Accordingly, Kilzi-
Mardik’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales,
406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72280