Ivan Muneem Kumar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
IVAN MUNEEM KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73953
Agency No. A44-955-847
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
Ivan Muneem Kumar, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73953 2
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law
and review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
We reject the government’s contention that we lack jurisdiction to review
Kumar’s petition for review. See Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th
Cir. 2008) (the jurisdiction-stripping provision found at 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C)
only applies to removal orders, not to applications for asylum withholding of
removal or CAT relief).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Kumar did not
suffer past persecution based on the harms to his family members in Fiji. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d at 1060 (petitioner must demonstrate harms to family
were part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to petitioner to make a successful
showing of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s
conclusion that the harms to Kumar’s family and the country conditions fail to
demonstrate an objective well-founded fear of future persecution. See Arriaga-
Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Molina-Estrada v.
INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Kumar’s asylum claim
fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73953 3
Because Kumar does not have a well-founded fear of persecution, it
necessarily follows that he fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for
withholding of removal. See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d at 415.
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Kumar failed
to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Fiji. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying humanitarian asylum where
Kumar failed to show sufficiently severe past persecution or a reasonable
possibility of other serious harm upon removal to Fiji. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii); see also Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000).
We reject Kumar’s contention that the IJ failed to consider all of his
evidence because Kumar has not overcome the presumption that the IJ reviewed
his supplemental evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th
Cir. 2000).
Finally, Kumar’s remaining contentions that the IJ applied an improper
standard when evaluating his asylum claim, and that the IJ was rushed and biased
during the hearing are belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --