NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MUSA MOHAMED DARAMY, No. 10-70835
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-667-911
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Musa Mohamed Daramy, 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”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Daramy contends rebels targeted him and his family because of his ethnicity
and political opinion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
that Daramy failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482,
1490-91 (9th Cir. 1997); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (to
obtain reversal, petitioner must show “the evidence not only supports that
conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original). In the absence of past
persecution, Daramy’s humanitarian asylum claim necessarily fails. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider Daramy’s pattern and
practice of persecution contention because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Daramy’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d
1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001).
2 10-70835
Finally, Daramy does not challenge the agency’s denial of his CAT claim.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-70835