Zein v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Zein v. Holder

401 F. App'x 177

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 2010

Docket07-75036

StatusUnpublished

This text of 401 F. App'x 177 (Zein 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

Zein v. Holder, 401 F. App'x 177 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Imad Fouad Zein, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Zein failed to demonstrate that either the threatening phone calls he received from Hezbollah or the attempted kidnaping of his son were on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Tecun-Florian v. INS, 207 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir.2000). The record also does not compel the conclusion that the harassment Zein experienced by guards at checkpoints amounted to persecution or demonstrated a clear probability of persecution. See Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2000); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Zein’s withholding of removal claim fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).

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 **

Imad Fouad Zein, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Zein failed to demonstrate that either the threatening phone calls he received from Hezbollah or the attempted kidnaping of his son were on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Tecun-Florian v. INS, 207 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir.2000). The record also does not compel the conclusion that the harassment Zein experienced by guards at checkpoints amounted to persecution or demonstrated a clear probability of persecution. See Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2000); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Zein’s withholding of removal claim fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).

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)

401 F. App'x 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zein-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack