David George Thomas; Michelle Thomas; Shaldon Waide Thomas; Tyneal Michelle Thomas 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID GEORGE THOMAS;
MICHELLE THOMAS; SHALDON
WAIDE THOMAS; TYNEAL
MICHELLE THOMAS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70213
Agency Nos. A075-597-033
A075-597-034
A075-597-035
A075-597-036
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted January 9, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Michelle and David Thomas and their two children petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) final order dismissing their appeal
FILED
JAN 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
requesting asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the Thomases
did not meet their burden of establishing that they were harmed by persons the
government was unwilling or unable to control. The police responded to Michelle
Thomas’s reports of the vandalism of her car and the incident involving her
daughter by patrolling the area and, for the vandalism incident, taking fingerprints.
See Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that local police
response “may provide powerful evidence with respect to the government’s
willingness or ability to protect” applicants); Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148,
1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that the evidence did not compel a finding that acts
were committed by forces the government was unwilling or unable to control
where the police took reports documenting the petitioner’s complaints but were
ultimately unable to solve the crimes). In addition, Michelle Thomas
“acknowledged that [South Africa] does arrest criminals, that trials are conducted,
. . . that convicted persons are put in prison,” and “that there is a full judicial
system operating in South Africa.” Because the Thomases did not meet their
burden on this requirement, they did not establish past persecution. Navas v. INS,
217 F.3d 646, 655-56 (9th Cir. 2000).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Even if the Thomases had established past persecution, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s determination that the government rebutted any presumption of
a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing a “fundamental change in
circumstances” based on Boss Ronnie’s retirement. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)-
(ii).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --