FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 2 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSHDY SHEHATA MINA SHEHATA, No. 08-74797
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-026-666
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 1, 2011 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Roshdy Shehata Mina Shehata, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
deny the petition for review.
Shehata does not challenge the IJ’s dispositive finding that his application
for asylum was untimely. Accordingly, Shehata’s asylum claim fails.
Even if Shehata was credible, the record does not compel the conclusion that
the incident where Muslim men beat him and the incident where the police
detained and beat him, even considered cumulatively, amounted to past
persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006). In
addition, even if he was a member of a disfavored group, Shehata has not shown
sufficient individualized risk to establish a clear probability of persecution. See
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003); Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal
will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk
evidence”). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that there is a
pattern or practice of persecution of Coptic Christians. See id. at 1060-62.
Accordingly, Shehata’s withholding of removal claim also fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Shehata failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured
2 08-74797
by or with the acquiescence of the Egyptian government. See Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-74797