Ratsnee Keovanna 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RATSNEE KEOVANNA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74098
Agency No. A098-448-354
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ratsnee Keovanna, a native and citizen of Laos, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
JUN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74098 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Keovanna failed to
establish the harms she suffered on account of her Seventh Day Adventist religion,
including the interrogation by government agents and her pastor’s arrest, rose to
the level of persecution. See id. at 1016-17. Substantial evidence further supports
the agency’s finding that Keovanna failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
future harm. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002)
(when a petitioner has not established past persecution, the agency may “rely on all
relevant evidence in the record, including a State Department report, in considering
whether the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future
persecution.”). Accordingly, Keovanna’s asylum claim fails.
Because Keovanna has not established eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Keovanna failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the
agency’s denial of her CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74098 3
We reject Keovanna’s contention that the IJ failed to properly evaluate her
claim and consider the documents she proffered at trial because there is no
evidence rebutting the presumption that the IJ reviewed all the relevant evidence.
See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000). We also
reject Keovanna’s conclusory due process claim regarding the BIA’s interpretation
of applicable asylum requirements.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --