Nima Ali Mobasser v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NIMA ALI MOBASSER,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70225
Agency No. A077-304-352
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Nima Ali Mobasser, a native of Iran and citizen of Sweden, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence.
FILED
JUL 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
First, Mobasser has failed to show that the agency was compelled to
conclude that he suffered past persecution in Sweden. Mobasser experienced only
one incident of physical violence in Sweden committed by private actors when he
was a teenager, and that incident did “not compare to the severity of physical abuse
that in other cases we have deemed persuasive to show persecution.” Nagoulko v.
INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014,
1019–21 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, although “acts of violence committed against
an applicant’s friends or family can establish a well-founded fear of persecution,”
Nagoulko 333 F.3d at 1017, that Mobasser’s 11-year-old family friend was beaten
into a coma by a racist group during that incident does not compel a factfinder to
conclude that Mobasser suffered past persecution. Furthermore, there is no
evidence that the Swedish government is unwilling or unable to control such
private conduct. See Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920-21 (9th Cir. 2010).
Nor does the other instance of ethnic discrimination Mobasser recounted – in
which he was denied the opportunity to attend a tour of a military command unit
with fellow soldiers – compel a finding of past persecution. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Persecution is an extreme concept

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive [and] .
. . mere discrimination, by itself, is not the same as persecution.” (citations,
alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted)); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 962
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (persecution does not include “mere discrimination, as
offensive as it may be”). Even considered cumulatively, these two incidents do not
rise to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir.
2009) (harassment, threats, and one beating did not compel finding of past
persecution).
Second, the record evidence does not compel the conclusion that Mobasser
has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1022 (petitioner
failed “to present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded
fear of persecution”). The agency was entitled to rely on the record evidence
indicating that the Swedish government actively combats ethnic violence and
discrimination, and Mobasser’s speculative fear of future persecution “does not
compel a finding that future persecution is an objectively reasonable possibility.”
Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief,
as Mobasser has presented no evidence demonstrating that it is more likely than

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
not that he will be tortured if returned to Sweden. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d
829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --