Khosrou Hajikhan Mohammadi 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).
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of***
International Trade, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KHOSROU HAJIKHAN MOHAMMADI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74445
Agency No. A078-675-930
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 2, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.***
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mohammadi’s
experiences in Peru did not rise to the level of past persecution, given that
FILED
NOV 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Mohammadi failed to show that the unfulfilled threats forming the “primary part of
[his] past persecution claim” were either “especially menacing,” Lim v. INS, 224
F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000), or “accompanied by . . . violent confrontations,
near-confrontations and vandalism,” Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th
Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence likewise supports the BIA’s conclusion that
Mohammadi lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution. The 2002 and 2003
Country Reports on Peru are silent regarding discrimination against Middle
Easterners or those perceived to be Muslim, see Kazlauskas v. INS, 46 F.3d 902,
906 (9th Cir. 1995), and Mohammadi did not rebut the government’s argument that
he could reasonably relocate to a bigger city in Peru to avoid the problems he
experienced in the small town of Barranca, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(ii).
Therefore, the BIA’s denial of Mohammadi’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims was supported by substantial evidence.
Because Mohammadi presented no evidence of past torture or of country
conditions conducive to future torture, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Mohammadi is ineligible for relief under the Convention Against
Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). Remand to the agency for further
proceedings is unnecessary because Mohammadi has not established that he
suffered any prejudice from the translation problems at his removal hearing and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
therefore has shown no violation of his due process rights. See, e.g., Gutierrez-
Chavez v. INS, 298 F.3d 824, 830 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --