Opinion
No. 07-75036.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 25, 2010.
Ruben Neshan Sarkisian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Janette L. Allen, Esquire, Trial, Mark A. Walters, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A077-302-547.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Imad Fouad Zein, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th. Cir. 2006) and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Zein failed to demonstrate that either the threatening phone calls he received from Hezbollah or the attempted kidnaping of his son were on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Tecun-Florian v. INS, 207 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2000). The record also does not compel the conclusion that the harassment Zein experienced by guards at checkpoints amounted to persecution or demonstrated a clear probability of persecution. See Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 110(W)1 (9th Cir. 2000); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Zein's withholding of removal claim fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).