FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 29 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK ANTHONY PRINCE, AKA No. 15-73652
Nkomo Mugabe Levene, AKA Tafari
Williams, Agency No. A076-022-830
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 14, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and DU,** District Judge.
Petitioner Patrick Anthony Prince, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our
appellate jurisdiction rests on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner has failed
to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and a protected ground. See
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–60 (9th Cir. 2017); Sangha v. I.N.S.,
103 F.3d 1482, 1486–87 (9th Cir. 1997). Petitioner argues he was, and will
continue to be, subject to persecution because of his father’s support for Michael
Manley and the People’s National Party (PNP). But Petitioner offered little detail
about his father’s political support, and the only evidence in the record
documenting his father’s activities in Jamaica described his involvement in a
bloody gang dispute dating back decades. The record does not compel the
conclusion that Petitioner’s imputed political opinion was a reason for the harm he
suffered. See Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 360. Petitioner has similarly failed to
show that he would be threatened in the future because of an imputed political
opinion.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner has
failed to show a likelihood of future torture carried out or acquiesced in by
Jamaican officials. Petitioner acknowledged that police shot his brother believing
2
he was a thief, and he testified that his half-brother was accidentally killed by the
police when they were chasing after someone else. Petitioner further testified that
in most of his own encounters with violent attackers he was unable to identify the
perpetrators and declined to report the events to the police. Petitioner has failed to
show that he would be tortured upon return or that the police would be “unable or
unwilling” to oppose any future attacks. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d
1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION DENIED.
3