KEPA v. GARLAND (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Asenaca Tirisiane Kepa, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum. 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). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that the harm Kepa experienced in Fiji, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“cases with threats alone, particularly anonymous or vague ones, rarely constitute persecution”); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (record of past harm that included detention and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Persecution ․ is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Kepa failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1022 (petitioner failed “to present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”); see also Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Kepa's contentions that the agency erred in its legal analysis or consideration of her claim.

Thus, Kepa's asylum claim fails.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.