Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

276 F. App'x 708

Amin v. Mukasey

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided May 5, 2008

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2008-05-05

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 2008

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias · Martinez-Serrano v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Nagoulko v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2008-05-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1MEMORANDUM

¶2Tjandani Amin, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

¶3The record does not compel the conclusion that Amin produced evidence sufficient to establish past persecution. See id.at 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812; see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003) (finding that petitioner did not suffer past persecution, although she was pushed, teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed, because she never suffered any significant physical violence). Further, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Amin failed to establish she had a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995); see also Lolong *709v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179-81 (9th Cir.2007) (en bane).

¶4Because Amin failed to meet the lower standard of proof required to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to show that she is entitled to withholding of removal. See Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).

¶5In her opening brief, Amin fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the IJ’s denial of CAT protection. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

¶6PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

¶7 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

/276/fappx/708 · .json · Public domain