Nzimba Isabel Lutando Marques v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NZIMBA ISABEL LUTANDO
MARQUES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71689
Agency No. A098-929-537
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 17, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Nzimba Isabel Lutando Marques, a native and citizen of Angola, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming
the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum and protection under the
FILED
APR 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a). We deny Marques’s petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s determination that Marques
did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. Marques did
not show that hostility against Mana Church leaders was widespread or directed at
Marques. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009). The IJ
properly considered State Department reports on country conditions. See
Kamalyan v. Holder, 620 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that country
reports “are often the most appropriate and perhaps the best resource for
information on political situations in foreign nations” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Where those country reports predated the alleged persecution, the IJ
properly provided an opportunity for Marques to supplement the record with
additional corroborating evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). In considering
Marques’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal on the basis of religious
persecution, the IJ and BIA were not required to weigh wholly unrelated acts of
alleged persecution. The case Marques cites, Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d
734, 739-41 (9th Cir. 2009) recognizes only that a persecutor may act with
multiple motives, not that unrelated acts may be aggregated to show an objectively
reasonable fear of future persecution.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The BIA also did not err in denying Marques’s application for CAT relief.
Torture can consist of “prolonged mental harm” caused by the “threat of imminent
death,” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(4), but unfulfilled threats may constitute mere
harassment, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). It was
not error for the BIA and IJ to conclude that Marques failed to establish that she
more likely than not would be tortured with government acquiescence. See Zhang
v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
Marques’s petition for review is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --