Cases

MEMORANDUM ** Francisco Udiel Gramajo-Diaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and 1253(h). Because the transitional rules apply, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U. S.C. § 1105a(a).

MEMORANDUM ** The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that the district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law ... [or] (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In this case both of these conditions were met.

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Here, the court reverses the BIA’s determination that the petitioner, Benito Eusebio Chanchavac (“Chanchavac”), has failed to demonstrate either that he has been persecuted in the past or that his fear of future persecution in Guatemala is otherwise objectively reasonable. Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination, I must respectfully dissent. Chanchava

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: Shabanali Ladha (“Mr. Ladha”) and Khatoon Ladha (“Mrs. Ladha”), husband and wife, and Farzana Ladha (“Farzana”), their daughter, are Pakistani nationals and citizens. They petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their claims to asylum and withholding of deportation. The BIA held that, even assuming that the