Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Alien, who was native and citizen of Philippines, petitioned pro se for review of order of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of immigration judge's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) substantial evidence supported BIA's conclusion that alien did not establish eligibility for asylum, and (2) since alien did not establish eligibility for asylum, it followed that alien did not satisfy more stringent standard for withholding of deportation.
Petition denied.
Page 549.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before O'SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Antonio Janolo Bihasa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review of a final decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of the BIA pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), and we deny the petition.
Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), deportation proceedings initiated prior to April 1, 1997, for which a final order of deportation is issued after October 30, 1996, are subject to the transitional rules. Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150-51 (9th Cir.1997). Because deportation proceedings were initiated against Bihasa on January 28, 1993, and a final order of deportation was issued on September 12, 2000, the transitional rules apply to his case.
We review the BIA's factual findings, including whether a petitioner has demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, for substantial evidence, and we uphold the BIA ruling unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).
Because the record does not compel the conclusion that Bihasa was persecuted or reasonably fears persecution on account of political opinion or any other prohibited ground, the BIA's conclusion that he did not establish eligibility for asylum is supported by substantial evidence. See id. It follows that Bihasa did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.