Musa Daramy v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Musa Daramy v. Eric Holder, Jr.

584 F. App'x 356

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 29, 2014

Docket10-70835

StatusUnpublished

This text of 584 F. App'x 356 (Musa Daramy v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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

Musa Daramy v. Eric Holder, Jr., 584 F. App'x 356 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Musa Mohamed Daramy, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Daramy contends rebels targeted him and his family because of his ethnicity and political opinion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Daramy failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1997); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (to obtain reversal, petitioner must show “the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original). In the absence of past persecution, Daramy’s humanitarian asylum claim necessarily fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider Daramy’s pattern and practice of persecution contention because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Thus, Daramy’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molino-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048,1052 (9th Cir.2001).

Finally, Daramy does not challenge the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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 **

Musa Mohamed Daramy, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Daramy contends rebels targeted him and his family because of his ethnicity and political opinion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Daramy failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1997); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (to obtain reversal, petitioner must show “the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original). In the absence of past persecution, Daramy’s humanitarian asylum claim necessarily fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider Daramy’s pattern and practice of persecution contention because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Thus, Daramy’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molino-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048,1052 (9th Cir.2001).

Finally, Daramy does not challenge the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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)

584 F. App'x 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/musa-daramy-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack