Opinion
No. 07-72278.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed January 21, 2010.
Alex Abesamis Dometita, Lake Forest, CA, pro se.
Maria Margarita Dometita, Lake Forest, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Matt Crapo, Esquire, OIL, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, 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 Nos. A099-035-822, A099-035-823.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 fail. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009).