Amer M. Al Shalabi 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMER M. AL SHALABI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71351
Agency No. A075-104-221
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Amer M. Al Shalabi, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 09-71351
(“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo due
process claims, Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Shalabi testified that a neighbor threatened to kill him, that he was once
jailed by police for two days, and that he suffers anxiety in Jordan. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s denial of Shalabi’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims because he failed to demonstrate he was or will be harmed on
account of a protected ground. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th
Cir. 2005); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’
for an asylum applicant’s persecution”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Shalabi failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of the government if returned to Jordan. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524
F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 09-71351
Because Shalabi was given a full and fair hearing on his claims and a
reasonable opportunity to present evidence, we reject his due process claims. See
Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2007).
Further, because the BIA applied the correct legal standard to Shalabi’s
cancellation of removal claim, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s
discretionary hardship determination. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Shalabi’s unexhausted contention
that he is eligible for a U visa. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the
BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --