Shazia Sharifa Rahiman 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.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAZIA SHARIFA RAHIMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73154
Agency No. A079-262-309
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Shazia Sharifa Rahiman, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PR/Research 07-73154 2
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum because the
December 1999 incident and other acts of harassment Rahiman experienced did
not rise to the level of persecution, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244-45 (9th
Cir. 2000), and she did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution,
see Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967-71 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing that “[m]ere
generalized lawlessness and violence between diverse populations” without a
particularized risk to the petitioner is generally insufficient to support a claim of
asylum).
Because Rahiman failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because
Rahiman failed to establish that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if
returned to Fiji. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --