Dometita v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Dometita v. Holder

362 F. App'x 805

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 21, 2010

Docket07-72278

StatusUnpublished

This text of 362 F. App'x 805 (Dometita v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dometita v. Holder, 362 F. App'x 805 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Alex Abesamis Dometita, and his wife, Maria Margarita Dometita, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish the threats Dometita received from the Abusayaff group were on account of a protected ground. See Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir.1998) (denying petition for review because petitioners did not establish that extortion was on account of an enumerated ground); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir.2009) (a protected ground has to be “one central reason” for persecution). Accordingly, because petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were persecuted or fear future persecution on account of a protected ground, their asylum and withholding of removal claims *807 fail. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Alex Abesamis Dometita, and his wife, Maria Margarita Dometita, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish the threats Dometita received from the Abusayaff group were on account of a protected ground. See Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir.1998) (denying petition for review because petitioners did not establish that extortion was on account of an enumerated ground); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir.2009) (a protected ground has to be “one central reason” for persecution). Accordingly, because petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were persecuted or fear future persecution on account of a protected ground, their asylum and withholding of removal claims *807 fail. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 F. App'x 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dometita-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack