Alton Lewis v. Loretta Lynch

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 24, 2017
• Docket: 15-72817
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALTON GEORGE LEWIS, AKA Anthony No. 15-72817 Chattman, Agency No. A097-344-232 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted January 18, 2017**

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Alton George Lewis, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* 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). (“CAT”). We have 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), and we deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Lewis references in his opening brief that

are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64

(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the past harm

Lewis suffered from a gang in Jamaica did not rise to the level of persecution. See

Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats

“constitute[d] harassment rather than persecution.”). Substantial evidence also

supports the agency’s determination that Lewis’s fear of future harm from the gang

he previously encountered is not objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333

F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear not objectively reasonable where the

possibility of future harm was too speculative). Thus, Lewis’s withholding of

removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Lewis did not show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by

2 15-72817 or with the consent or acquiescence of the Jamaican government. See Silaya, 524

F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 15-72817