FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 17 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DERVIS YUKSEL, No. 13-70561
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-264-931
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted September 14, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Dervis Yuksel, a native and citizen of Turkey, 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. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s legal determinations
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
de novo, and factual findings for substantial evidence. Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009).
Yuksel argues that the immigration judge erred by deeming his cousin’s
affidavit irrelevant on the grounds that Yuksel’s testimony about his own activities
and experiences had been found not to be credible. But the BIA did consider the
cousin’s affidavit, along with the other documentary evidence offered by
petitioner, and substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Yuksel
did not show an individualized risk of persecution or that there is a pattern or
practice of persecution of ethnic Kurds in Turkey. See id. at 1060, 1066. The
evidence does not compel the conclusion that there is systemic persecution of this
ethnic minority in Turkey, see Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180–81 (9th
Cir. 2007), or that it is more likely than not that Yuksel will be tortured if he
returns to Turkey, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067–68 (citing Kamalthas v. INS,
251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001)). Finally, we agree with the BIA that Yuksel
did not establish that he was denied a fair hearing. See Vargas-Hernandez v.
Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 925 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION DENIED.
2