NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
IBRAHIM NAOFAL, a.k.a. Ibrahim No. 08-71852
Noufal,
Agency No. A095-691-659
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Ibrahim Naofal, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
*
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).
findings, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Naofal failed to
demonstrate the beating he endured was on account of a protected ground,
including his religion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (to
reverse the agency’s finding “we must find that the evidence not only supports that
conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original); see also Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a
protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s
persecution”). Accordingly, Naofal’s withholding of removal claim fails. See
Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71852