FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAVINESH GOVIND, No. 06-72378
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-628-775
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ravinesh Govind, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
NHY/Research
removal and cancellation of removal, and the BIA’s order denying his motion to
remand proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence factual findings, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042
(9th Cir. 2001), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Malhi
v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Govind did not
establish that the harms he experienced after the 1987 coup rose to the level of
persecution. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004)
(“Random, isolated criminal acts perpetrated by anonymous thieves do not
establish persecution.”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding
that Govind’s similarly situated Indo-Fijian parents remained in Fiji for twelve
years without incident after his departure, and thus Govind did not demonstrate a
well-founded fear of persecution. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th
Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Govind’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Govind failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying
relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir. 2005).
NHY/Research 2 06-72378
The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining the transcript was
sufficient, and denying Govind’s motion to remand. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d
1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be
reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law”); see also Ramirez-
Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 365, 382 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (a motion to
remand is treated as a motion to reopen).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
NHY/Research 3 06-72378