Faheem Abbas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FAHEEM ABBAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73333
Agency No. A213-080-708
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 8, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,** District
Judge.
Petitioner Faheem Abbas, a native and citizen of Pakistan and citizen of
Ecuador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) affirming the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 8 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Having reviewed the agency’s
determinations for substantial evidence, we deny the petition. See Singh v. Holder,
638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69 (9th Cir. 2011).
In his opening brief, Abbas did not challenge the BIA’s determination that
he had firmly resettled in Ecuador and is thus ineligible for asylum based on the
incidents in Pakistan. See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 967 (9th Cir. 2006)
(finding the petitioner’s failure to challenge an issue in his opening brief waived
appeal on that issue). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
Abbas can reasonably relocate within Pakistan. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3); see
also Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, Abbas’s
withholding of removal to Pakistan claim fails.
Even if the harm Abbas suffered in Ecuador amounted to persecution, the
BIA’s determination that the Ecuadorian government was willing and able to
protect Petitioner is supported by substantial evidence. See J.R. v. Barr, 975 F.3d
778, 782-83 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Had the government been willing to continue to
provide effective protection, [the petitioner] would have lacked a viable claim, for
the government would have been both willing and able to protect him.”).
Accordingly, Abbas is not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal in
Ecuador.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Finally, both of Abbas’s CAT claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s determinations that Abbas failed to establish it was more likely than not that
he would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, government officials if
removed to Pakistan or Ecuador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); Nuru v. Gonzales,
404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --