KYDYRALI v. BARR (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Satbay Kydyrali claims the Board of Immigration Appeals erred by finding a lack of nexus between any harm he suffered and a protected ground as required by 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A) for asylum and 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) for withholding of removal. Substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that any persecution Kydyrali may have suffered resulted from a business dispute, not his political opinion. Purely personal retribution is not persecution for a political opinion. Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000).

Kydyrali also claims that the Board erred in denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To qualify for CAT relief, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing that he will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed to his native country. Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). Past torture is a relevant factor in determining whether a petitioner will be tortured in the future. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). Kydyrali does not claim he has been tortured, and substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Kydyrali has not shown that, more likely than not, he will be tortured by the government of Kazakhstan or with its consent upon returning to Kazakhstan. The petition for review is DENIED.