Cokanavula

Cokanavula v. Ashcroft

Good Law
114 F. App'x 827
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 24, 2004No. 03-73364California345 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Kinijoji Cokanavula, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of applications for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. 1 We have jurisdiction under the former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). As the BIA issued a summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision, we “scrutinize the IJ’s decision as we would a decision by the BIA itself.” Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 855 (9th Cir. 2003). We review for substantial evidence the denial of asylum and withholding of deportation and will reverse the BIA’s determination only if petitioner shows evidence that compels such a result. Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Cokanavula did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum because he failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of persecution, in part because of changed country conditions. See Kumar v. INS, 204 F.3d 931, 934 (9th Cir.2000). Because Cokanavula failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not…

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.