JILBERT MANSOURI V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 17-72645 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JILBERT MANSOURI, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-72645 Agency No. A097-093-324 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Jilbert Mansouri, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions 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 (“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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the harm Mansouri suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner failed to establish past persecution where he was beaten and robbed on two occasions and accosted by a mob). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Mansouri did not establish a wellfounded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1060 (objective risk is established by a “‘reasonable possibility’ that [petitioner] will be ‘singled out individually for persecution’”). Thus, his asylum claim fails. In this case, Mansouri failed to establish eligibility for asylum, therefore, he did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Mansouri failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Iranian government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 17-72645 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-72645
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.
