ALTON LEWIS V. LORETTA LYNCH, No. 15-72817 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALTON GEORGE LEWIS, AKA Anthony Chattman, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72817 Agency No. A097-344-232 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Alton George Lewis, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection 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”). We have jurisdiction under 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), and we deny the petition for review. We do not consider the materials Lewis references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the past harm Lewis suffered from a gang in Jamaica did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats “constitute[d] harassment rather than persecution.”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Lewis’s fear of future harm from the gang he previously encountered is not objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear not objectively reasonable where the possibility of future harm was too speculative). Thus, Lewis’s withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lewis did not show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by 2 15-72817 or with the consent or acquiescence of the Jamaican government. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-72817
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
