Mamadou Fadjigui Diallo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAMADOU FADJIGUI DIALLO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70056
Agency No. A209-162-933
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mamadou Fadjigui Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70056
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Diallo failed to
establish past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution on account of a
protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011)
(a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution based on
a protected ground); see also Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th
Cir. 2001) (personal dispute is not grounds for relief unless connected to a
protected ground). Thus, Diallo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Diallo failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government of Guinea. See Zheng v. Holder, 644
F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
We do not consider materials Diallo references in his opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70056
Cir. 1996) (en banc). The government’s motion to strike exhibits from Diallo’s
opening brief is denied as unnecessary.
Diallo’s motion for pro bono counsel is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --