Familar v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Familar v. Gonzales

202 F. App'x 997

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 23, 2006

DocketNo. 05-71819

StatusPublished

This text of 202 F. App'x 997 (Familar v. Gonzales) 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

Familar v. Gonzales, 202 F. App'x 997 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

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 Id’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.

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.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

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 Id’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.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 F. App'x 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/familar-v-gonzales-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack