Osman Basha Dungal v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSMAN BASHA DUNGAL,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71957
Agency No. A070-074-623
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,*** District
Judge.
Osman Basha Dungal, a native and citizen of the Sudan, petitions for review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal
* 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).
*** The Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) order denying Dungal’s applications for asylum,
withholding, and relief under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition for review.1
1. Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s conclusions that Dungal had not
suffered past persecution and does not have a well-founded fear of future
persecution. Although Dungal may experience discrimination in the Sudan because
he is a member of the Nuba tribe and an amputee, the record does not compel the
conclusion that he will be persecuted. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted) (noting that the BIA’s “[f]indings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”).
2. The BIA’s determination that Dungal did not show “it is more likely
than not he would be subject to persecution” because of a protected ground is
supported by substantial evidence. Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.
2001) (citation omitted). Thus, he is also ineligible for withholding of removal.
3. The IJ correctly concluded that Dungal’s Temporary Protected Status
claim was moot because he did not re-register.2
1 The BIA found that Dungal waived his CAT claim, and he does not challenge
this holding in his petition for review.
2 Given our conclusions today, we need not address whether Dungal is also
ineligible for relief for providing material support to a terrorist organization. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3
DENIED.
8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI), 1158(b)(2)(A)(v), 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv),
1254a(c)(2)(B)(ii).

-- 3 of 3 --