FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILIP KUO, No. 09-72100
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-663-282
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2010 **
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Philip Kuo, a native and citizen of Malaysia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the vandalism,
curses, and other harassment Kuo suffered in Malaysia did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003)
(incidents of discrimination and harassment do not compel a finding of past
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Kuo failed
to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution because it is too
speculative to assume that he will be persecuted as a result of his Christian
religion. See id. at 1018 (record evidence did not show petitioner had objectively
reasonable basis for future fear); see also Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089,
1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (agency is entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the
record, including State Department reports, in considering whether a petitioner’s
fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable). Accordingly, Kuo’s asylum
claim fails.
Because Kuo did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows
that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 09-72100
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Kuo failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not he would be
tortured. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner
failed to provide evidence “that he is likely to be tortured by the actors he fears”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-72100