Mohammed Drammeh 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MOHAMMED DRAMMEH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74998
Agency No. A096-145-417
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Mohammed Drammeh, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
MAR 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74998
substantial evidence factual findings. Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th
Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Drammeh’s request for a humanitarian
grant of asylum because he did not raise this claim to the agency. See
Rodas-Mendoza v. INS, 246 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2001).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Drammeh failed
to establish that his experiences in Sierra Leone rose to the level of persecution, see
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003), or that he was targeted on
account of a protected ground, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84
(1992). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Drammeh
failed to establish a future fear of persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018
(possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, Drammeh’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Drammeh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --