Astried Mandarini v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Good Law
514 F. App'x 646
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 25, 201308-72225California609 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Astried Mandarini and her husband Bruce Allen Resiwain, as a derivative beneficiary of Mandarini’s claims, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) decision adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding Mandarini ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. We deny the petition for review.

The IJ’s conclusion that Mandarini failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2006). The two incidents that Mandarini experienced in Indonesia, though frightening, do not rise to the level of past persecution. “Persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995). Further, Mandarini failed to demonstrate that the incidents were “committed by the government or forces the government is either unable or unwilling to control.” Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir.2010).

The IJ’s determination that Mandarini failed to establish a…

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.