Asenaca Tirisiane Kepa v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASENACA TIRISIANE KEPA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70392
Agency No. A088-547-453
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Asenaca Tirisiane Kepa, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70392
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Kepa
experienced in Fiji, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019)
(“cases with threats alone, particularly anonymous or vague ones, rarely constitute
persecution”); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (record of
past harm that included detention and interrogation did not compel a finding of
past persecution); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“Persecution . . . is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of
treatment our society regards as offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Kepa
failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d at
1022 (petitioner failed “to present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a
well-founded fear of persecution”); see also Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018
(possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Kepa’s contentions that the agency
erred in its legal analysis or consideration of her claim.
Thus, Kepa’s asylum claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70392
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --