JACK EDWARD COLE, AKA Garth Newmeyers v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACK EDWARD COLE, AKA Garth
Newmeyers,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71370
Agency No. A200-883-021
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jack Edward Cole, a native and citizen of Canada, 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,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-71370
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings,
and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Padilla-
Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for
review.
We reject Cole’s contentions that the BIA violated his due process rights by
summarily affirming the IJ’s decision or by failing to properly review his case. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a
due process claim).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Cole failed to
meet his burden of proof to demonstrate past persecution by the Hell’s Angels in
Canada. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.2001) (“The
applicant has the burden of proving his eligibility with ‘credible, direct, and
specific evidence’”) (citation omitted); Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1045-46
(9th Cir. 2009) (record did not compel reversal of the BIA’s conclusion that
petitioner’s corroborating evidence was insufficient). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s conclusion that Cole failed to demonstrate a well-founded
fear of persecution by the Hell’s Angels in Canada because he did not establish his
fear was objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003) (accepting petitioner’s fear was subjectively genuine but finding it was

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-71370
“not objectively reasonable under the circumstances of [the] case”). We reject
Cole’s contentions that agency failed to consider evidence or erred by misstating or
misrepresenting the record. Thus, Cole’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Cole failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed
to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Cole’s CAT claim fails because he did not demonstrate it is more
likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
Canadian government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.
2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --