Esfandiar Nikbakhsh Tali v. Eric H. Holder

05-72621Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit1 juin 2010

Texte intégral

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Philip M. Pro, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESFANDIAR NIKBAKHSH TALI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER,
Respondent.
No. 05-72621
A020-039-482
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 14, 2010,
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and PRO, ** District
Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Esfandiar Nikbakhsh Tali (“Tali”), a native and citizen of
Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny Tali withholding of
removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and deferral of removal under
FILED
JUN 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252, 2242 and we deny the petition for review.
Because the BIA affirmed the IJ and dismissed Tali’s appeal without any
additional reasoning, the Court reviews the IJ’s decision as if it were the final
agency action. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). On the
record before us, we cannot say that the IJ relied on improper evidence in
determining that Tali was convicted of a “particularly serious” crime and thus is
ineligible for withholding of removal. See Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673,
677 (9th Cir. 2010).
The IJ also did not err in denying Tali deferral of removal under CAT.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Tali failed to
establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if he is returned to Iran.
See Herrera v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 571 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir.
2009); Huang v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.