Syedo Obotimbe v. Jefferson Sessions
This text of Syedo Obotimbe v. Jefferson Sessions (Syedo Obotimbe v. Jefferson Sessions) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYEDO OBOTIMBE, No. 14-71191
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-534-121
v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Syedo Obotimbe, a native of Côte d’Ivoire and a citizen of Mali, petitions
pro se 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
* 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenges to the BIA’s denial of
Obotimbe’s motion to reopen because he did not file a petition for review of that
order. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner
must file a separate petition for review from denial of motion to reopen).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Obotimbe’s contention that he was not
deportable because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
We do not consider the materials Obotimbe filed with this court that are not
part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to “the administrative record upon which
the [removal] order is based”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Obotimbe claims he suffered past harm and fears future persecution in Côte
d’Ivoire. He does not claim that he was or would be persecuted in Mali.
2 14-71191 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, even if he had
shown he was a citizen of Côte d’Ivoire, Obotimbe did not establish the harm he
suffered in Côte d’Ivoire from supporters of ex-President Gbagbo rose to the level
of persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005)
(record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s past harm constituted
persecution); see also Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006)
(brief detention, beating and interrogation did not compel a finding of past
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that
Obotimbe failed to demonstrate that his fear of future persecution in Côte d’Ivoire
was objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.
2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Obotimbe’s
asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Obotimbe failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Obotimbe failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned
to Côte d’Ivoire. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
3 14-71191 (possibility of torture too speculative).
We reject Obotimbe’s request that his case be remanded to the BIA.
Finally, Obotimbe’s motion for assignment of pro-bono counsel (Docket
Entry No. 38) is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
4 14-71191
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Syedo Obotimbe v. Jefferson Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/syedo-obotimbe-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2018.