Standford Koduah v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STANDFORD KODUAH,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70378
Agency No. A208-308-095
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.
Standford Koduah, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions pro se for review
of 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”). We have
* 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 16-70378
jurisdiction under 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),
and we review de novo due process contentions, Cruz Rendon, 603 F.3d 1104,
1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Koduah’s failed to
establish past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution by his cousin in
Ghana 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). Thus, we deny the petition as to Koduah’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Koduah’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Ghana. See
Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
We reject Koduah’s contention that the agency violated his due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000); Tawadrus v.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70378
Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (requirements for knowing and
voluntary waiver of the right to counsel).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --