Christian Godfrey Absolom v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTIAN GODFREY ABSOLOM,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73252
Agency No. A028-963-972
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 17, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Christian Absolom, a native and citizen of South Africa, petitions for review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the denial by an
Immigration Judge (IJ) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for
review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the government
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FILED
NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
rebutted the presumption that Absolom has a well-founded fear of future
persecution. The Department of State’s 2006 Country Report, submitted by the
government, documented that the precise reason for Absolom’s prior persecution,
apartheid, had ceased and had been replaced by a legal regime prohibiting
discrimination against colored people and placing “a responsibility on the state and
any person in the public domain to promote equality.” It is difficult to imagine a
more dramatic change in government-sanctioned persecution than the fall of the
apartheid regime. The IJ also conducted the required individualized analysis. See
Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 834 (9th Cir. 2014); Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025,
1030 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the IJ did not err in denying Absolom’s asylum
claim.
2. Because Absolom is ineligible for asylum, we need not determine whether
the IJ’s discretionary denial of his asylum claim was an abuse of discretion.
3. Substantial evidence also supported the BIA’s determination, based on the
IJ’s factual findings, that Absolom had not demonstrated eligibility for humanitarian
asylum. “This avenue for asylum has been reserved for rare situations of
‘atrocious’ persecution.” Vongsakdy v. INS, 171 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999).
4. Because Absolom failed to satisfy the “well-founded fear” requirement
for asylum, he necessarily failed also to satisfy the more stringent “clear probability

-- 2 of 3 --

3
of persecution” standard for withholding of removal. Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332
F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).
5. The IJ’s conclusion that Absolom had not demonstrated that it was more
likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to South Africa was supported
by substantial evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Therefore, the IJ did not
err in denying Absolom’s CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --