John Doe v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN DOE,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73987
Agency No. A088-702-157
ORDER
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit
Judges.
Although the mandate in this case issued on July 24, 2017, we have now
received petitioner’s request to seal the case and to eliminate a reference to his
name change. We will treat this as a motion to amend the case name to include a
pseudonym and to eliminate reference to his name change.
We recall the mandate and grant the unopposed motion to amend the case
name to include a pseudonym. Thus, in all places in the caption and in the
memorandum disposition where the petitioner’s name now appears, the
memorandum is hereby amended to substitute “John Doe” for the petitioner’s
name. We also amend the memorandum to eliminate the reference to petitioner's
FILED
OCT 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 5 --

2 14-73987
name change. With those amendments made, the disposition is hereby refiled and
the mandate shall reissue immediately.

-- 2 of 5 --

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN DOE,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73987
Agency No. A088-702-157
AMENDED MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 30, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
John Doe, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection 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 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 3 of 5 --

2 14-73987
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioner did not
establish that his past harm rose to the level of persecution. See Halim v. Holder,
590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution because he failed to demonstrate it would be unreasonable for him to
relocate within Kenya to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B);
Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding BIA’s
determination that petitioner failed to establish it was unreasonable to relocate
within Mexico). Thus, petitioner’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he
failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because the record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not
that petitioner will be tortured at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of the
government if returned to Kenya. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th
Cir. 2008).

-- 4 of 5 --

3 14-73987
Finally, we reject petitioner’s contention that the BIA erred in declining to
address the IJ’s nexus finding. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25
(1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on
issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED.

-- 5 of 5 --