Joseph Pius Anari v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH PIUS ANARI,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70728
Agency No. A208-307-398
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Pius Anari, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se from the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70728
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny in part, dismiss in part, and grant in part the petition for review,
and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Anari failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the Nigerian government. See id. at 1073.
As to Anari’s claim for relief based on problems with his ex-girlfriend’s ex-
husband, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that he failed to
establish that this was on account of a protected ground. See Molina-Morales v.
INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal dispute is not grounds for
relief unless connected to a protected ground). We lack jurisdiction to review
Anari’s contentions regarding the Black Axe Cult or his membership in a particular
social group because these contentions were not raised to the agency. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion is mandatory and
jurisdictional).
As to Anari’s claim for relief based on religion, substantial evidence does
not support the agency’s finding that the harm that Anari and his family suffered

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70728
did not rise to the level of persecution. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203
(9th Cir. 2004) (totality of the circumstances compelled finding of past
persecution).
Thus, we deny in part and grant in part Anari’s petition for review, and
remand his asylum and withholding of removal claims for further proceedings
consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)
(per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part;
GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --