Komal v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Komal v. Holder

375 F. App'x 722

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 2010

Docket17-30261

StatusUnpublished

This text of 375 F. App'x 722 (Komal v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Komal v. Holder, 375 F. App'x 722 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Kavita Komal and Suruj Pal, wife and husband and their children, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182, n. 4 (9th Cir.2003), and de novo questions of law, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly concluded that petitioners failed to establish past persecution based on the agency’s previous credibility finding, which the court upheld in Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000). See Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 492 (9th Cir.2000) (issue preclusion applies in immigration proceedings); see also Matter of Fedorenko, 19 I. & N. Dec. 57, 61 (BIA 1984) (applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel where the alien was given a full and fair opportunity to litigate in prior proceedings).

In assessing future fear, the agency applied the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004), but concluded that because petitioners were not credible with respect to their claims of past harm, they did not demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding. Cf. Sael, 386 F.3d at 927-29. Further, on the record, the petitioners failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of Indo-Fijians in Fiji. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir.2009).

Because petitioners have not met the standard for asylum, they necessarily can *723 not meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Kavita Komal and Suruj Pal, wife and husband and their children, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182, n. 4 (9th Cir.2003), and de novo questions of law, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly concluded that petitioners failed to establish past persecution based on the agency’s previous credibility finding, which the court upheld in Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000). See Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 492 (9th Cir.2000) (issue preclusion applies in immigration proceedings); see also Matter of Fedorenko, 19 I. & N. Dec. 57, 61 (BIA 1984) (applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel where the alien was given a full and fair opportunity to litigate in prior proceedings).

In assessing future fear, the agency applied the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004), but concluded that because petitioners were not credible with respect to their claims of past harm, they did not demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding. Cf. Sael, 386 F.3d at 927-29. Further, on the record, the petitioners failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of Indo-Fijians in Fiji. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir.2009).

Because petitioners have not met the standard for asylum, they necessarily can *723 not meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 F. App'x 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/komal-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack