Seitaro Kanamaru 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SEITARO KANAMARU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72944
Agency No. A088-894-406
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Seitaro Kanamaru, native and citizen of Japan, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72944 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, and we review de novo constitutional claims and
questions of law. Khan v. Holder, 584 F. 3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that any harm Kanamaru
alleged did not occur on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740
(9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one
central reason’ for an asylum applicant's persecution”). Accordingly, Kanamaru’s
asylum and withholding of removal claim fails. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d
1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
The record also supports the agency’s denial of Kanamaru’s CAT claim,
because he failed to show a likelihood of torture at the instigation of, or with the
acquiescence of the Japanese government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066,
1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we reject Kanamaru’s various due process claims. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner
to prevail on a due process claim). We also reject his constitutional challenges.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --