Tan Go v. Holder ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRACE TAN GO, No. 06-71575
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-617-601
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 9, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACE and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, Senior District
Judge.**
Grace Tan Go petitions for review from a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her claims for asylum, withholding of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for the
Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), and we deny Tan Go’s petition.1
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of Tan Go’s claims for
asylum and withholding of removal. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191
(9th Cir. 2007) (reviewing the Board’s denial of an applicant’s asylum and
withholding claims for substantial evidence). Although Tan Go contends that she
will be subjected to an illegitimate kidnapping prosecution upon removal to the
Philippines, the record does not compel us to conclude that her prosecution is a
pretext for government persecution. See Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1108 (9th
Cir. 2009) (explaining that an alien’s fear of being held accountable for criminal
conduct “does not necessarily entitle” her to “protection [in] the United States”).
According to the record, James King, who operated a drug-trafficking scheme with
Tan Go’s husband, was stabbed and placed in the trunk of the Gos’ car in June
2002. After King alleged that the Gos had kidnapped him, Tan Go and her
husband were formally charged by the Philippine government with committing this
offense. This evidence is sufficient to support the Board’s conclusion that the
1
In a concurrently filed opinion, we address the petition for review filed by
Tan Go’s husband, Roderick Lim Go.
2
kidnapping charges against Tan Go were filed as part of an “actual, legitimate,
criminal prosecution.” See id. at 1109.
Similarly, Tan Go’s dispute with the King family does not compel the
conclusion that “anti-government sympathies” have been attributed to Tan Go. See
Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir. 1988). Unlike the “government by
thievery” controlled by the Ton Ton Macoutes in Desir, Tan Go has not
demonstrated that the Philippine government and the King family should be treated
as one. See id at 724, 729. Although the Kings have accused several members of
Tan Go’s family of committing criminal offenses, and although the King family
has allegedly threatened them with violence, Tan Go’s family has successfully
fought these charges, avoided trial, and remained unharmed. There is nothing in
the record demonstrating that the King family has sufficient power and influence
over the local government to fulfill its threats of violence against Tan Go. See id.
at 729.
Finally, we reject Tan Go’s CAT and due process claims for the reasons set
forth in our decision addressing her husband’s nearly identical claims for relief.
See Go v. Holder, No. 06-71575, Slip Op. at 10–16 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION DENIED.
3