Elias Al Fakhouri v. Merrick Garland, 15-71471

Petitioner Elias Nael Elias Al Fakhouri, a Jordanian national, petitioned pro se for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252; the panel reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence.
The agency concluded Al Fakhouri failed to show past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution; therefore asylum was denied.
Because asylum was not established, the agency also denied withholding of removal as a matter necessarily tied to asylum eligibility.
The BIA denied the CAT claim, finding Al Fakhouri did not show it was more likely than not he would be tortured with government consent or acquiescence if returned to Jordan.
The BIA denied a motion to remand to admit additional letters, concluding the evidence could have been presented earlier; the court found no record support for Al Fakhouri’s assertion that the agency failed to consider the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Asylum: past persecution / well‑founded fear	Al Fakhouri argued he suffered or reasonably fears persecution in Jordan.	Agency argued he failed to prove past persecution or compelling objective evidence of a well‑founded fear.	Denied: substantial evidence supports agency that he did not meet persecution or well‑founded fear standards.
Withholding of removal	Al Fakhouri sought withholding independent of asylum.	Agency argued withholding fails where asylum not established.	Denied as derivative: withholding fails because asylum eligibility not shown.
CAT protection	Al Fakhouri argued he would more likely than not be tortured if returned.	Agency argued he failed to show torture by or with consent/acquiescence of government.	Denied: substantial evidence supports BIA that CAT standard not met.
Motion to remand for additional letters	Al Fakhouri sought remand to admit new letters.	BIA argued letters could have been discovered/presented earlier.	Denied: BIA did not abuse discretion; evidence was not shown to be previously unavailable.
Claim agency failed to consider evidence	Al Fakhouri claimed IJ/BIA did not review all submitted evidence.	Agency maintained the record was considered.	Rejected: record does not support claim that evidence was not considered.

Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of legal questions)
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2004) (deference to BIA statutory/regulatory interpretations)
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (substantial‑evidence review of factual findings; withholding tied to asylum)
Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2006) (persecution is an "extreme concept"; well‑founded fear requires compelling objective evidence)
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAT requires more‑likely‑than‑not torture with government consent/acquiescence)
Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2005) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for denial of motion to remand)
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA may deny remand when evidence was available earlier)
Gonzalez‑Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2018) (no indication agency failed to consider the evidence)