FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMBIKA PRASAD, No. 07-71821
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-591-654
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Ambika Prasad, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
*
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).
PR/Research
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary
departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1055-56 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary denial of voluntary
departure. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if Prasad’s
asylum application was timely, he did not establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution because he failed to demonstrate the
government was unable or unwilling to protect him from the native Fijians who
robbed and physically harmed him. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148,
1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (petitioner did not show government was “unable or unwilling
to control” where German police took reports and investigated incidents of threats,
even though police did not solve the crimes); see also Castro-Perez v. Gonzales,
409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting the burden is on the applicant to show
that the government is unable or unwilling to control the non-governmental
persecutor). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that Prasad
established a pattern or practice of persecution of Indo-Fijians in Fiji. See Wakkary
PR/Research 2 07-71821
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Prasad’s asylum
claim fails.
Because Prasad did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows
that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Prasad’s CAT claim
because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Fiji. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
PR/Research 3 07-71821