Lochin Naimdii, a.k.a Lochin Naindii; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LOCHIN NAIMDII, a.k.a Lochin Naindii;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70014
Agency Nos. A097-608-281
A097-608-282
A097-608-283
A097-608-284
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Lochin Naimdii and his family, natives and citizens of Mongolia, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
FILED
JUN 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-70014 2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the
petition for review.
Naimdii testified to one incident in Mongolia where the police kicked or
pushed him in the back and detained him for one day. Substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s finding that Naimdii did not establish past persecution based on
this experience. See id. at 1020-1021 (concluding no past persecution where
petitioner was detained for three days, interrogated, and struck with a rod ten
times). In the absence of past persecution, Naimdii’s humanitarian asylum claim
necessarily fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Further, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s finding that Naimdii failed to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, Naimdii’s asylum
claim fails.
Because Naimdii 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-70014 3
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
became Naimdii failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Mongolia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --