Zehtabi v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 14, 2023
• Docket: 21-1197
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 14 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRAM ZEHTABI, No. 21-1197

Petitioner, Agency No. A213-593-553

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Argued and Submitted April 18, 2023 Submission Vacated April 19, 2023 Resubmitted September 14, 2023 Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW and KOH, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,** District Judge.

Pedram Zehtabi, a native and citizen of Iran, seeks review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order affirming the denial of his application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition.

We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for

substantial evidence, Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019),

and may only reverse if “the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but

compels it—and also compels the further conclusion that the petitioner meets the

requisite standard for obtaining relief,” Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th

Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of

removal because there is no nexus between Zehtabi’s mistreatment and a protected

ground. See Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir. 2021) (for asylum, a

protected ground must be “at least one central reason” for harm); Singh v. Barr, 935

F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (for withholding of removal, a protected

ground must be “a reason” for harm).

Zehtabi worked as a land assessor for a bank in Iran. In June 2020, he was

assigned to appraise a land parcel owned by Commander Hozar Arash, a high-

ranking member of the Basij (a paramilitary group in the Iranian Revolutionary

Guard Corps). Zehtabi testified that he found the land parcel to be significantly

smaller than Commander Arash had claimed. A representative of Commander Arash

offered Zehtabi a bribe to write a report inflating the size, and Zehtabi refused. When

2 Zehtabi returned to reassess the land parcel a week later, several men, including

Commander Arash, again asked Zehtabi to falsely overstate the size of the land

parcel in exchange for money. This time, Commander Arash threatened Zehtabi’s

life if he refused. Again, Zehtabi refused. Shortly after this conversation, Zehtabi

received threatening text messages from unknown individuals, had his tires slashed

by unknown individuals, was involved in a hit-and-run car accident, and was

assaulted by two unknown individuals, who stole his phone and warned him to be

careful.

The agency did not err in finding that Zehtabi was targeted by Commander

Arash for a personal reason, and not for an imputed political opinion as a perceived

whistleblower or his membership in the proposed particular social group of people

“that ha[ve] acted against a ranking member of the Basij which is directly against

the Supreme Leader hence against Khamenei and the Islamic Revolution.” Zehtabi’s

testimony before the IJ shows that Commander Arash did not target Zehtabi based

on any protected ground, but instead on Zehtabi’s refusal to overstate the size of the

land to financially benefit Commander Arash. Further, the evidence showed that the

threatening text messages, tire slashing, and assaults on Zehtabi were committed by

unknown persons with no evident connection to Commander Arash, and with no

evident basis on a protected ground.

3 Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that

Commander Arash’s threats were on account of his own financial interests in the

land fraud, rather than a protected ground. Zehtabi provided no direct or

circumstantial evidence of motive sufficient to compel a conclusion contrary to that

reached by the BIA. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 656–57 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring evidence of the persecutor’s motive to establish a nexus); see also

Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 1680 (2021) (“[E]ven if the BIA treats an

alien’s evidence as credible, the agency need not find his evidence persuasive or

sufficient to meet the burden of proof.”).

Accordingly, the record does not compel the conclusion that Zehtabi’s

imputed political opinion or membership in his proposed particular social group was

a reason, let alone a central reason, for any mistreatment. Because the lack of a

nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of Zehtabi’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims, see Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016), we

do not consider his arguments regarding the BIA’s relocation analysis or the BIA’s

determination that Zehtabi waived any challenge to the IJ’s finding of no past

persecution.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. To qualify

for CAT relief, a petitioner must show “that it is ‘more likely than not’ that he or she

will be tortured, and not simply persecuted upon removal to a given country.”

4 Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.16(c)(2)). Such torture must be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with

the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official

capacity.” Id. at 1282 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1)).

Zehtabi’s reliance on “generalized evidence of violence and crime” in Iran is

insufficient to establish the particularized risk of torture necessary for CAT relief.

Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

Zehtabi’s family in Iran has not been threatened or harmed since he left. The record

does not compel the conclusion that Zehtabi was tortured in Iran or would be tortured

if he returned. Nor does Zehtabi show “clear indications” that the agency failed to

consider all of the evidence before it. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791–92

(9th Cir. 2014) (“Unless clear indications exist that the IJ or BIA did not consider

the documentary evidence, general language that the agency ‘considered all the

evidence before [it]’ is sufficient.” (quoting Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th

Cir. 2011)).

Finding no abuse of discretion or legal error, we deny the petition for review.1

PETITION DENIED.

1 The pending motion to stay removal (Dkt. 2) and supplemental motion to stay removal (Dkt. 10) are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal remains in effect until issuance of the mandate. 5