Goricsan

Goricsan v. Mukasey

Good Law
304 F. App'x 481
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 2, 2008No. 05-70868California336 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jozsef Goriesan, his wife and children, all natives and citizens of Hungary petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal for, Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995), and we review de novo claims of constitutional violations, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Goriesan failed to show past persecution because Goricsan’s two brief detentions, employment conditions, job loss and his children’s lowered grades, even considered cumulatively, do not rise to the level of past persecution. See Prasad, 47 F.3d at 339-40 ; Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Goriscan did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because the State Department reports…

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.