Diamond Santos v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 381 F. App'x 720 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIAMOND KING LIM SANTOS, a.k.a. No. 09-70095
Diamond Lin Santos,
Agency No. A070-693-073
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Diamond King Lim Santos, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko
v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Santos failed
to establish past persecution as a result of the threats the New People’s Army made
to his mother when he was a child. See Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d
1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
conclusion that Santos did not establish a clear probability of future persecution
because Santos failed to show his mother’s problems from the threats was closely
tied to him. See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, Santos’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Santos’ CAT claim
because Santos failed to establish it was more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to the Philipines. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70095