Michal Saoud 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAL SAOUD,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70814
Agency No. A077-993-346
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Michal Saoud, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUL 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70814 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed circumstances
excused Saoud’s untimely filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4);
Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Accordingly, Saoud’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Saoud did not suffer
past persecution on account of his Christian religion because Saoud’s experiences
with government employment in the 1970s constituted at most discrimination and
harassment, see Halaim v. INS, 358 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir.2004), and Saoud
did not establish that the isolated attack on his wife in 1986 constituted
persecution, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Saoud did not
demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution. See Molina-Estrada v. INS,
293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002) (when a petitioner has not established past
persecution, the agency may “rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including
a State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated
that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”). Accordingly, Saoud did not
establish eligibility for withholding of removal.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70814 3
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Saoud failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Syria. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --