Almaz Araya Gebru 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).
JLA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALMAZ ARAYA GEBRU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73123
Agency No. A097-863-616
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Almaz Araya Gebru, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of
a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JLA/Research 07-73123 2
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the threats and
harassment Gebru faced from the police did not rise to the level of persecution, see
Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000), and that the harm Gebru suffered
was related to the enforcement of the guarantee she posted on her brother’s behalf
and not on account of a protected ground, see Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041,
1044-45 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding
that Gebru did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because her
suspicion that the police arrested her husband due to their interest in her is too
speculative to provide an objective basis for her fear. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333
F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Gebru failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, she has
also failed to establish her eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.

-- 2 of 3 --

JLA/Research 07-73123 3
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Gebru
failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if returned
to Ethiopia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --