Vasile Budure v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 489 F. App'x 188 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VASILE BUDURE; DANIEL BUDURE, No. 08-72477
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A099-524-147
A099-524-145
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 3, 2012 **
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Brothers Daniel and Vasile Budure (“Petitioners”), citizens of Romania, seek
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We
deny the petition.
Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s conclusions as to whether Petitioners
demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, we review
that portion of the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s own. Hoque v. Ashcroft, 367
F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th
Cir. 2003)). After a careful review of the record, we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s determination. Even if reasonable minds could differ over
whether the discrimination and harassment Petitioners endured in Romania amount
to past persecution, the facts do not compel such a finding. See Zheng v. Holder, 644
F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011) (to reverse factual findings, “the evidence must compel
a different conclusion from the one reached by the [IJ]” (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1 (1992))). Additionally, Petitioners fail to demonstrate a
subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. Ahmed v.
Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (“To be well-founded, an asylum
applicant’s fear of persecution must be both subjectively genuine and objectively
reasonable.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because they do not meet the eligibility requirements for asylum, Petitioners’
“claim[s] for withholding of removal, governed by a more stringent standard, [are]
2
also foreclosed.” Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2011)
(citing Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2005)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3