Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ovimer MONESTINE, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Ovimer Monestine, 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, humanitarian 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Monestine failed to establish the harm he experienced was on account of a protected ground, including an imputed political opinion. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant's “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2008) (past persecution based on anti-gang political opinion not established where petitioner's evidence failed to show that he was ideologically opposed to the gang and instead demonstrated he was victimized for economic and personal reasons), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Monestine failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable, in part, because similarly-situated family members remained in petitioner's home country unharmed). Thus, Monestine's asylum, humanitarian asylum, and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Monestine failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Haiti. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-72155
Decided: September 17, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)