Ahmed Hired v. William P. Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: October 31, 2019
• Docket: 18-2904
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2904 ___________________________

Ahmed Abdi Hired

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________

Submitted: October 28, 2019 Filed: October 31, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Ahmed Hired, a citizen of Somalia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding a decision by an immigration judge denying Hired, inter alia, deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Upon careful review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Hired’s request for deferral of removal under the CAT. See Degbe v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 651, 655 (8th Cir. 2018) (this court reviews agency determination that alien is not eligible for relief under CAT using deferential substantial evidence standard; this court reviews agency’s legal determinations de novo, according substantial deference to BIA’s interpretation of statutes and regulations it administers); see also Cherichel v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1002, 1013 (8th Cir. 2010) (petitioner may not obtain relief under CAT unless he can show that his prospective torturer has goal or intent of inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon him; BIA properly defined specific intent to require that actor must intend both prohibited act and its prohibited consequences). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The BIA also upheld the immigration judge’s decision denying Hired’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Because Hired has not challenged those aspects of the decision in his opening brief, any claims as to the denial of those applications are waived. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not meaningfully argued in opening brief is waived).

-2-