FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALIE KAMARA, No. 08-71753
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-612-801
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alie Kamara, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
Kamara contends the harm he and his family suffered in Sierra Leone was
on account of his religion and his actual or imputed political opinion. Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Kamara failed to establish he was
persecuted on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483 (1992) (petitioner did not show guerrillas would persecute him because of
his political opinion rather than his refusal to join). Accordingly, Kamara’s asylum
claim, including his claim for humanitarian asylum, and his withholding of
removal claim fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because Kamara
failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to
Sierra Leone. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1289-90 (9th Cir. 2008).
Kamara’s contention that the BIA failed to give independent consideration to his
CAT claim is belied by the record.
2 08-71753
Further, Kamara’s due process claims fail because he has not shown the BIA
erred. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings).
Finally, we deny Kamara’s motion to strike the government’s answering
brief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71753