Opinion
This 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)
Page 998.
Bert M. Vega, Esq., Law Office of Bert M. Vega, Vallejo, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A72-127-121.
Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Arcadio Cabierte Familar, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision summarily affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ's decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that Familar is not eligible for asylum. The unfulfilled threats and "blacklisting" directed at Familar by the New People's Army do not constitute past persecution or form an adequate basis for a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003); Quintanilla-Ticas v. INS, 783 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir.1986).
Because Familar failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960-61 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
Familar also failed to establish a CAT claim because he did not show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to the Philippines. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.