Tadesse Ayele v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-73112 · 2011-01-19 · Unpublished

Tadesse Ayleka AYELE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent

Area: other
Panel: Susan Graber (author), Smith, Benitez

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TADESSE AYLEKA AYELE, No. 09-73112 Petitioner, Agency No. A028-616-106 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 11, 2011** Seattle, Washington Before: GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, *** District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. Petitioner Tadesse Ayleka Ayele petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and also denied his motion to remand for an adjustment of status.

Petitioner is not a member of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (“EPRP”), does not provide financial support for the EPRP, and his name does not appear on any EPRP list. Petitioner also has not suffered harm by or with the acquiescence of the Ethiopian government, nor has he received threats of such harm. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection. See Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 983 (9th Cir. 2007).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion to remand, as Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for an adjustment of status or a waiver of inadmissibility. See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008).

The petition for review is DENIED.