Michael Poley 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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL POLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73272
Agency No. A097-867-589
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Michael Poley, a native of Belarus and a citizen of Israel, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
FILED
DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 06-73272 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, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, even taken
cumulatively, the mistreatment and harassment Poley suffered in Belarus and Israel
did not rise to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40
(9th Cir. 1995). Further, because Poley’s fears of returning to Israel are
speculative, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Poley failed to
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at
1018.
Because Poley 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).
Poley has failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the agency’s
denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --