Mohammad Tayseer Izzo Al Bashiti v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMAD TAYSEER IZZO AL
BASHITI,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73500
Agency No. A205-783-526
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Mohammad Tayseer Izzo Al Bashiti, 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, and relief 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
FEB 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-73500
(“CAT”), and denying his motions to reopen and to remand removal proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th
Cir. 2001). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to remand and
reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005); Romero-Ruiz
v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Al Bashiti
failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in Jordan was or will be
on account of a protected ground. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351,
356-60 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing the respective nexus requirements for asylum
and withholding of removal claims). Thus, Al Bashiti’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Al Bashiti failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Jordan. See Aden v. Holder,
589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Al Bashiti’s motion to
remand where Al Bashiti failed to demonstrate that the new evidence he sought to
submit would likely have changed the outcome of his case. See Shin v. Mukasey,
547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioners who seek to remand proceedings

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-73500
“bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new
evidence would likely change the result in the case.” (citation omitted)).
Al Bashiti does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen based
on ineffective assistance of counsel. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --