PHILOMOND v. SESSIONS III (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Ketnol Philomond, a native and citizen of Haiti, 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 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), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Philomond failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in Brazil on account of a protected ground. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecution is an “extreme concept” that includes the “infliction of suffering or harm”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Philomond’s asylum and withholding of removal claims as to Brazil fail.

Philomond fears harm on account of his family membership from unknown men who were engaged in a dispute with his father over his father’s land in Haiti. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Philomond failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in Haiti on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”). Thus, Philomond’s asylum and withholding of removal claims as to Haiti fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Philomond’s CAT claim as to Brazil and Haiti because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Brazil or Haiti. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.