Ibea v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Ibea v. Ashcroft

98 F. App'x 672

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 2004

DocketNo. 03-70039, A72-133-324

StatusPublished

This text of 98 F. App'x 672 (Ibea v. Ashcroft) 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

Ibea v. Ashcroft, 98 F. App'x 672 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jimmy Yabes Ibea, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338-38 (9th Cir.1995), and we deny the petition for review.

[673]*673Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ibea did not meet his burden of proof because he did not submit direct or specific evidence that he was persecuted in the Philippines on account of a protected ground. See id. at 339-40.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Jimmy Yabes Ibea, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338-38 (9th Cir.1995), and we deny the petition for review.

[673]*673Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ibea did not meet his burden of proof because he did not submit direct or specific evidence that he was persecuted in the Philippines on account of a protected ground. See id. at 339-40.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 F. App'x 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ibea-v-ashcroft-ca9-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack