U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2009

Hazem v. Mukasey

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided January 20, 2009

309 F. App'x 178

Counsel

Frank P. Sprouls, Esq., Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner., Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Joseph Kim, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Katija Hazem v. Eric Holder, Jr. (9th Cir. 2014)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Katija Bahar Hazem, a native of Afghanistan and citizen of Germany, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The discrimination and harassment Hazem suffered as an Afghani immigrant in Germany does not compel a finding of past persecution. See id. at 1016-18. Further, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Hazem has not established an objective fear of future persecution. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 1998).

Because Hazem has not met the standard for asylum, she necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.