Essa Samasa 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.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESSA SAMASA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71748
Agency No. A095-403-203
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Essa Samasa, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions 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
FILED
JAN 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71748
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of
fact, including adverse credibility determinations. Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
1281, 1285 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if credible, and
even if Samasa established past persecution on account of a protected ground, the
DHS had rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution
based on changed country conditions in Sierra Leone. See id. at 1286.
Additionally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying humanitarian
asylum where Samasa failed to show sufficiently severe past persecution or a
reasonable possibility of other serious harm upon removal to Sierra Leone. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii); see also Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th
Cir. 2000). Therefore, Samasa’s asylum claims fails.
Because Samasa failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71748
Lastly, Samasa has not raised any arguments challenging the agency’s denial
of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --