Wilberforce Kigundu 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 Honorable James Maxwell Moody, Senior United States District**
Judge for the District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILBERFORCE KIGUNDU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-76749
Agency No. A029-557-466
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 12, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MOODY, District
Judge.**
Wilberforce Kigundu, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming, without opinion,
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Kigundu’s application for asylum,
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Kigundu argues the BIA
and IJ erred in denying his asylum application because he adequately established
through his own testimony that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of an imputed political opinion that, as a member of the national boxing
team, he supported the regime of former president Milton Obote.
Kigundu established, through his own credible testimony, that he has a
subjective fear of future persecution on account of his imputed political opinion.
See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1192 (9th Cir. 2007). The IJ, however,
found that Kigundu’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable
because it was largely speculative and based on hearsay. The IJ’s conclusion is
supported by substantial evidence, as the record does not compel a contrary result.
See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2004).
Kigundu made no showing that he “is at particular risk” of suffering
persecution if he returns to Uganda because of his perceived association with the
Obote regime. Mgoian v. INS, 184 F.3d 1029, 1035 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting
Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 1994)). He provided no objective support
for his belief that the Museveni regime, which succeeded Obote’s regime, was
arresting and interrogating members of the national boxing team when he left

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Uganda in 1988. Kigundu identified only one member of the boxing team who had
been arrested, and admitted he did not know whether that person’s arrest was
related to his membership on the boxing team. Although both the Department of
State country report and the Human Rights Watch report included in the record
reveal that Uganda has a relatively weak human rights record, neither discusses
any persecution of individuals who were formerly associated in any way with the
Obote regime.
Kigundu makes no argument concerning the BIA’s and IJ’s denial of his
claims for withholding of removal and protection under CAT and has therefore
waived his right to challenge the denial of those forms of relief. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
Petition for review DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --