ABBAS v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-08No. No. 18-73333

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection.

Faheem Abbas, a Pakistani and Ecuadorian citizen, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court examined whether Abbas qualified for relief based on persecution he allegedly faced in Pakistan and Ecuador. The court found that Abbas had waived his challenge to the agency's conclusion that he had firmly resettled in Ecuador, making him ineligible for asylum based on Pakistani incidents. Additionally, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the agency's findings that Abbas could reasonably relocate within Pakistan and that the Ecuadorian government was willing and able to protect him from harm.

Regarding Abbas's torture-based claims, the court found that he failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of government officials if returned to either Pakistan or Ecuador. The court therefore upheld the agency's denial of all three forms of relief sought.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether firm resettlement in Ecuador bars asylum claims based on persecution in Pakistan
Whether applicant can reasonably relocate within country of origin
Whether government willingness and ability to provide protection defeats asylum eligibility
Whether applicant established likelihood of torture by or with acquiescence of government officials

Procedural posture

Abbas petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming the denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture applications.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Faheem Abbas, a native and citizen of Pakistan and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Having reviewed the agencys determinations for substantial evidence, we deny the petition. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69 (9th Cir. 2011).

In his opening brief, Abbas did not challenge the BIAs determination that he had firmly resettled in Ecuador and is thus ineligible for asylum based on the incidents in Pakistan. See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 967 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding the petitioners failure to challenge an issue in his opening brief waived appeal on that issue). Substantial evidence supports the BIAs determination that Abbas can reasonably relocate within Pakistan. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3); see also Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, Abbass withholding of removal to Pakistan claim fails.

Even if the harm Abbas suffered in Ecuador amounted to persecution, the BIAs determination that the Ecuadorian government was willing and able to protect Petitioner is supported by substantial evidence. See J.R. v. Barr, 975 F.3d 778, 782-83 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Had the government been willing to continue to provide effective protection, [the petitioner] would have lacked a viable claim, for the government would have been both willing and able to protect him.”). Accordingly, Abbas is not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal in Ecuador.

Finally, both of Abbass CAT claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the BIAs determinations that Abbas failed to establish it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, government officials if removed to Pakistan or Ecuador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.