FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMILE KIFON WIRNGO, a.k.a. Wirngo No. 12-73519
Emile Kifon,
Agency No. A200-289-690
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Emile Kifon Wirngo, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 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.
Wirngo claims he suffered past persecution when he was detained for two
weeks, denied access to adequate food and sanitation facilities, and warned to stop
circulating his ideas about the government of Cameroon. Even if credible, the
record does not compel the conclusion that he suffered past persecution. See Li v.
Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (describing persecution as
an “extreme concept”); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found [these incidents constituted]
past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do
so.”). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Wirngo does not
have a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Lin v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1093,
1097 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner did not establish that the Chinese authorities would
act in a manner that would rise to the level of persecution). Thus, Wirngo’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Wirngo failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it
follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 12-73519
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Wirngo failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government of Cameroon. See Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we reject Wirngo’s contention that the agency failed to consider all
the evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000)
(petitioner must overcome the presumption that the agency has considered all the
evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73519