NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMAD HOSSAIN, No. 16-70920
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-302-867
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Mohammad Hossain, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 the
agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence support the agency’s conclusion that Hossain’s
experiences during the 2015 attack did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1181, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (lifetime of
harassment, threats, and single beating did not rise to the level of persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Hossain failed
to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh because he did not
establish it was objectively reasonable. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977
(9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner “failed to make a compelling showing of the requisite
objective component of a well-founded fear of persecution”); Hakeem v. INS, 273
F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is
weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live
in the country without incident[.]”). Thus, Hossain’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Hossain failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Hossain’s CAT claim fails because he did not demonstrate it is more
likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
2 16-70920
government if returned to Bangladesh. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-70920