NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
ENRICO ZARATE RIVERA; et al., No. 08-70106
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A070-784-320
A070-784-321
v. A070-784-324
A070-784-325
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Enrico Rivera and his family, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying their claims for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
We deny the petition for review.
The incidents of mistreatment at issue, including pushing Rivera into a taxi,
pushing his wife at the front door of their home, and the general, unfulfilled threats
of harm to Rivera and his family, do not compel a finding of past persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th Cir. 2003) (incidents of pushing by
police did “not compare to the severity of physical abuse that in other cases we
have deemed persuasive to show persecution”); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,
1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats constituted harassment rather than
persecution). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Rivera failed to establish an objective fear of persecution because the politician he
opposed and fears problems from died, and he has not established an objective
basis for fearing harm from the politician’s son. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018
(crediting petitioner’s subjective fear but concluding her fear was “too speculative”
and thus “not objectively reasonable under the circumstances of this case”).
Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Rivera’s asylum claim.
2 08-70106
Because Rivera has failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum,
his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Rivera’s only argument regarding CAT is the erroneous statement
that establishing eligibility for withholding of removal establishes his eligibility for
CAT relief. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005)
(CAT claim waived where petitioner argued only that standards for restriction on
removal and CAT relief were the same and did not “specifically and distinctly”
argue and raise the issue of relief under CAT) (internal citation and quotation
omitted). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Rivera’s CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70106