Dualan v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Dualan v. Mukasey

293 F. App'x 439

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 30, 2008

DocketNo. 05-75610

StatusPublished

This text of 293 F. App'x 439 (Dualan v. Mukasey) 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

Dualan v. Mukasey, 293 F. App'x 439 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Romeo Vilipendio Dualan, native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1998), and we deny the petition for review.

Dualan does not raise any contention pertaining to past persecution, so we only consider well-founded fear. Sub[441]*441stantial evidence supports the agency’s decision that Dualan failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution because he was not targeted by the New People’s Army in the Philippines. See Singh, 134 F.3d at 967 (“[T]o establish well-founded fear, petitioner cannot simply prove that there exists generalized or random possibility of persecution, she must show that she is at particular risk.”). Furthermore, Dualan failed to meet his burden to show that he could not safely relocate within the Philippines. See Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th Cir.2004) (in the absence of establishing past persecution, the applicant bears the burden of establishing that it would be either unsafe or unreasonable for him to relocate unless the persecutor is the government); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i).

Because Dualan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Dualan has waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim by failing to raise it in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

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

**

Romeo Vilipendio Dualan, native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1998), and we deny the petition for review.

Dualan does not raise any contention pertaining to past persecution, so we only consider well-founded fear. Sub[441]*441stantial evidence supports the agency’s decision that Dualan failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution because he was not targeted by the New People’s Army in the Philippines. See Singh, 134 F.3d at 967 (“[T]o establish well-founded fear, petitioner cannot simply prove that there exists generalized or random possibility of persecution, she must show that she is at particular risk.”). Furthermore, Dualan failed to meet his burden to show that he could not safely relocate within the Philippines. See Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th Cir.2004) (in the absence of establishing past persecution, the applicant bears the burden of establishing that it would be either unsafe or unreasonable for him to relocate unless the persecutor is the government); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i).

Because Dualan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Dualan has waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim by failing to raise it in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

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)

293 F. App'x 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dualan-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack