DocketNumber: 07-73398
Judges: Fletcher, Smith, Mills
Filed Date: 5/23/2011
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 23 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS BERNARD DADIVAS; DRAENMHAR No. 07-73398 DADIVAS; MARIA CRISTINA DADIVAS, a.k.a. Ma Cristina Dadivas Agency Nos. A098-256-003 a.k.a. Maria Cristina Valisno, A098-256-004 A098-264-083 Petitioners, 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 May 11, 2011 San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, Senior District Judge.** * 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 District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Central Illinois, Springfield, sitting by designation. Bernard Dadivas, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, and denying his family’s derivative applications. We deny the petition for review. Dadivas failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution tied to a protected ground. The testimony did not establish that the murders of Enrico and Romulo Valisno were based on a protected ground, nor did the testimony indicate that the people responsible for those murders would have any reason to target the Dadivas family based on a protected ground. Thus, the BIA’s conclusion that Dadivas was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal was supported by substantial evidence. Molina-Estrada v. INS,293 F.3d 1089
, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2002). Given the speculative nature of Dadivas’ fears, the BIA’s conclusion that Dadivas did not show that it was “more likely than not” that he will be tortured if he returns to the Philippines was also supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder,590 F.3d 1034
, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION DENIED. 2