Brima Kanu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIMA KANU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71485
Agency No. A095-415-072
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Brima Kanu, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions 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,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JUL 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even if Kanu
was credible, he did not establish that he suffered past persecution by
Revolutionary United Front rebels on account of a protected ground, including his
actual or imputed political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483
(1992) (petitioner who refused to join guerrillas did not establish they would
persecute him because of his political opinion rather than because of his refusal to
fight with them); Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2000)
(petitioner did not show kidnapings and beatings in forced conscription efforts
were on account of a protected ground). Contrary to Kanu’s contention, the record
supports the agency’s finding that he was not politically involved, and we reject his
contentions that this finding was tainted by the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination and/or that the BIA’s analysis was inadequate.
Further, Kanu does not contest the BIA’s findings with respect to fear of
future persecution. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). Thus, Kanu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
12-71485 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, Kanu does not make any arguments regarding CAT relief. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-71485 3

-- 3 of 3 --