Roxas Geronimo v. Holder , 361 F. App'x 761 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO ROXAS GERONIMO; No. 06-75391
VERONICA MANGUERRA
GERONIMO, Agency Nos. A070-142-040
A070-142-041
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Rodolfo Roxas Geronimo, and his wife, Veronica Manguerra Geronimo,
natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JT/Research
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying their application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929,
933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish past persecution because the threats they received did not rise to
the level of persecution. See id. at 936. Substantial evidence further supports the
agency’s denial of asylum because petitioners failed to establish that the New
People’s Army threatened them on account of a protected ground, see Bolshakov v.
INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-82 (9th Cir. 1998), and failed to establish the incidents
involving their son and their employees were connected to their own problems
with the New People’s Army, see Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414
(9th Cir. 1991) (requiring that any pattern of persecution against family members
be “closely tied to the petitioner”). Finally, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that petitioners did not demonstrate that the Philippine
government was unwilling or unable to control their persecutors. See Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum
claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
JT/Research 2 06-75391