ALTON GEORGE LEWIS, AKA Anthony Chattman v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALTON GEORGE LEWIS, AKA Anthony
Chattman,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72817
Agency No. A097-344-232
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Alton George Lewis, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72817
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070
(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
We do not consider the materials Lewis references in his opening brief that
are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the past harm
Lewis suffered from a gang in Jamaica did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats
“constitute[d] harassment rather than persecution.”). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that Lewis’s fear of future harm from the gang
he previously encountered is not objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333
F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear not objectively reasonable where the
possibility of future harm was too speculative). Thus, Lewis’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Lewis did not show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72817
or with the consent or acquiescence of the Jamaican government. See Silaya, 524
F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --