Em

Em v. Ashcroft

Good Law
113 F. App'x 267
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 15, 2004No. 03-71442California403 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Dara Em requests relief from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision issued without opinion that affirms the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. We deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we will not recount it here.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Em failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Em claims that the Khmer Rouge tried forcibly to recruit him. However, forced recruitment, without more, does not amount to persecution. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). He also testified that the Khmer Rouge tried to extort money from his family, but extortion threats alone are not sufficient to constitute past persecution on account of a protected ground. See Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 736-37 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (holding that “extortion plus” is necessary to support a claim of asylum). Em’s narrative as to other acts of the Khmer Rouge directed at his family, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.