MAMADOU DIALLO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 18-70056 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAMADOU FADJIGUI DIALLO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70056 Agency No. A209-162-933 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Mamadou Fadjigui Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have * 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). 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). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Diallo failed to establish past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution based on a protected ground); see also Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal dispute is not grounds for relief unless connected to a protected ground). Thus, Diallo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Diallo failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guinea. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative). We do not consider materials Diallo references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th 2 18-70056 Cir. 1996) (en banc). The government’s motion to strike exhibits from Diallo’s opening brief is denied as unnecessary. Diallo’s motion for pro bono counsel is denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-70056
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.
