Espiritu v. Holder , 360 F. App'x 869 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          DEC 29 2009
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CARLOS MENDOZA ESPIRITU;                          No. 05-76926
    ARACELI ESPIRITU,
    Agency Nos. A071-625-801
    Petitioners,                                    A071-625-802
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 15, 2009 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Carlos Mendoza Espiritu and his wife, both natives and citizens of the
    Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
    summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    JK/Research
    application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
    § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 
    512 F.3d 1163
    ,
    1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
    determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 532
    , 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence.
    INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481 n.1 (1992). We deny the petition for
    review.
    The IJ denied withholding of removal because he found that the New
    People’s Army threatened petitioners for either criminal or commercial reasons.
    Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of relief because the petitioners did
    not show they were or would be persecuted in the Philippines on account of a
    protected ground. See 
    id. at 483-84.
    Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of
    removal claim fails. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 
    406 F.3d 1166
    , 1170-72 (9th Cir.
    2005) (affirming BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal where
    petitioners failed to prove their persecution was on account membership in a
    particular social group or imputed political opinion).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    JK/Research                                2                                     05-76926