Sam Rofael Altony v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAM ROFAEL ALTONY,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-393
Agency No.
A206-514-259
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 6, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACE and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, District
Judge.***
Sam Rofael Altony,1 a native and citizen of Iraq, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the
* 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).
*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
1 Altony’s true name is Salwan Amer Rafael.
FILED
JUN 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The IJ
denied Altony’s amended applications after finding that he filed a frivolous
application given his conviction for making false statements in his earlier
application, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546, and determining that he did not
fear returning to Germany, where he had received asylum prior to coming to the
United States. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we recount here only
the facts necessary to our disposition. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252 and deny the petition.
Altony raises two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the IJ failed
to give notice about designating Germany as the proposed country of removal.
However, Altony’s filings to the BIA suggest he did have notice. Second, he
contends that the IJ erred by not adjudicating his withholding of removal and
CAT claims as to Iraq. But because the government designated only Germany
as the proposed country of removal, the IJ did not have to adjudicate Altony’s
claims regarding Iraq.2 See She v. Holder, 629 F.3d 958, 965 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[A]n applicant is not entitled to adjudication of an application for withholding
of removal to a country that nobody is trying to send them to.”), superseded by
statute on other grounds as stated in Ming Dai v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 858, 868
2 Should Iraq ultimately become the proposed country of removal, we expect
that, consistent with his decision, the IJ will entertain a motion to consider
Altony’s applications as to Iraq.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
n.8 (9th Cir. 2018), vacated on other grounds by Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S.
Ct. 1669, 1674 (2021).
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --