Kimi v. Gonzales

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60739
Summary Calendar
RUAT REM KIMI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 318 167
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ruat Rem Kimi, a native and citizen of Burma, has petitioned
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision
denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ
found that, although Kimi had been subjected to discrimination
and harassment, the incidents she described did not rise to the
level of past persecution based on her race, religion, or social
group. Generally, we review the decision of the BIA and will

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 04-60739
-2-
consider the underlying decision of the IJ only if it influenced
the BIA’s determination. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th
Cir. 1997). When, as in this case, the BIA adopts the IJ’s
decision without a written opinion, we review the IJ’s decision.
Id.
Kimi’s described incidents with soldiers and military
intelligence officers amounted to harassment that was no more
egregious than other types of mistreatment that this court has
held not to be persecution. See Fleurinor v. INS, 585 F.2d 129,
132 (5th Cir. 1978). “Neither discrimination nor harassment
ordinarily amounts to persecution . . . even if the conduct
amounts to ‘morally reprehensible’ discrimination on the basis of
race or religion.” Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th
Cir. 2004). The IJ’s finding that Kimi had not been persecuted
was supported by substantial evidence.
Kimi also avers that the evidence compels a finding that she
has a well-founded fear of future persecution because she
established a pattern and practice of persecution of similarly
situated groups in Burma based on their Christianity, Chin
ethnicity, and their political opinions and she is included in
and identifies with such groups. “To establish a well-founded
fear of future persecution, an alien must demonstrate a
subjective fear of persecution, and that fear must be objectively
reasonable.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 04-60739
-3-
Assuming that Kimi had a subjective fear of persecution, as
her application and testimony indicate, she cannot show that her
fear was objectively reasonable. An alien may prove the
objectivity of her persecution claim by showing that she would be
singled out for persecution or, alternately, that there is a
“pattern or practice” of persecution of a group of persons in
which she is a member on account of an enumerated ground. Id. at
307-08; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A) (2005).
According to Kimi, the Burmese government likely is aware
that Kimi is Christian and Chin. That knowledge, however, did
not prevent the Burmese government from hiring her as a teacher
and it did not so disturb the government that she suffered past
persecution. The only characteristic that distinguishes Kimi
from other Chin is her membership in the Chin National Front
(C.N.F.). Kimi has not shown that the Burmese government was
aware that she was a member of the C.N.F. Nor has she shown if
or how such information could become available to the government.
See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 309. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
decision, and Kimi’s asylum claim fails.
Because Kimi has not met the requirements necessary to
obtain asylum, she cannot meet the more onerous standards
required to obtain withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft,
293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). Kimi’s claim for withholding
of removal also fails.

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 04-60739
-4-
Kimi did not argue in her brief that she was due relief
under the CAT. As such, the claim is waived. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that
issues must be briefed to be preserved on appeal).
Kimi’s petition for review is DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --