Rezkalla Sada, a.k.a. Sada Rzkalla 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
REZKALLA SADA, a.k.a. Sada Rzkalla,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74551
Agency No. A095-631-342
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Rezkalla Sada, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74551 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the
discrimination Sada suffered in Syria and the two incidents where young men
insulted and attacked him on account of his disability, even considered
cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319
F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Padash v. INS, 358 F.3d 1161, 1166 (9th
Cir. 2004) (two unrelated fights based on family’s religion did not constitute past
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Sada
failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See Padash, 358 F.3d
at 1166-67; see also Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (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, Sada’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Sada failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
or with the acquiescence of government officials if returned to Syria. See Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --