TEOMAN GURSON and GULSON GURSON 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 James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S.***
District Court for Alaska, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TEOMAN GURSON and GULSON
GURSON,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71279
Agency Nos. A098-263-632
A098-263-633
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: CALLAHAN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior
District Judge.***
Gulsun and Teoman Gurson petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their application for asylum and withholding of
FILED
AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history1
we do not restate them here except as necessary to explain our decision.
2
removal. The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) finding that the
Gursons failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their
religious beliefs. The evidence in the record does not compel a finding to the
contrary, and thus we deny the petition.1
1. The BIA’s findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). “[P]ersecution is an extreme concept.”
Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998). To establish past persecution the
Gursons must show: (1) incidents that rise to the level of persecution, (2) that the
persecution is based on their religious beliefs, and (3) that the government was
unable or unwilling to control the private actors responsible for the persecution.
Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir. 2004).
Although 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b) provides that asylum may be granted based on
persecution on the basis of religious views, the IJ reasonably determined that the
alleged incidents—being beaten for holding hands twenty years ago, being warned
to wear a head scarf and leggings or risk having hydrochloric acid thrown on them,
having the chimney blocked by the building manager—are more akin to

-- 2 of 3 --

3
discrimination rather than persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40
(9th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the Gursons’ contention that the events were due to
their religious beliefs is based on speculation, and they have not shown that the
government would be unable or unwilling to protect them. The Gursons did not
report most of the incidents and the Country Reports indicate the government of
Turkey is committed to ensuring religious freedom.
Because the Gursons failed to establish past persecution and offered no
separate grounds for fearing religious persecution, they have failed to demonstrate
a reasonable fear of future persecution. See Singh, 134 F.3d at 967 n.8 (holding a
fear of continuation of the same treatment necessarily ties petitioner’s fear of future
persecution to whether he experienced past persecution). Therefore, the Gursons
have failed to make the compelling factual showing necessary for a grant of relief.
2. In order to qualify for withholding of removal, petitioners must
demonstrate a “clear probability of persecution.” Id. at 971 (citation omitted). If
“the evidence does not compel a finding of persecution or a well-founded fear
thereof, it necessarily does not compel a finding that Petitioner[s] [have] shown a
‘clear probability’ of persecution if [they] were to return to [Turkey].” Id. Thus,
the Gursons do not qualify for withholding of removal.
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --