FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMED DRAMMEH, No. 08-74998
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-145-417
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Mohammed Drammeh, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
substantial evidence factual findings. Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th
Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Drammeh’s request for a humanitarian
grant of asylum because he did not raise this claim to the agency. See
Rodas-Mendoza v. INS, 246 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2001).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Drammeh failed
to establish that his experiences in Sierra Leone rose to the level of persecution, see
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003), or that he was targeted on
account of a protected ground, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84
(1992). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Drammeh
failed to establish a future fear of persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018
(possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, Drammeh’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Drammeh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
08-74998