Baba Kaba 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BABA KABA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70605
Agency No. A095-408-629
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Baba Kaba, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70605 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “This court reviews factual determinations, including
credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Morgan v. Mukasey, 529
F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that circumstances in
Sierra Leone have fundamentally changed such that Kaba does not have a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); Sowe v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285–87 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we deny the
petition as to Kaba’s asylum claim.
Because Kaba failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot
demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Kaba
failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with
the acquiescence of government officials if returned to Sierra Leone. See Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009). We therefore deny the petition as
to his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --