FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDITH SANCHEZ, No. 08-71077
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-148-290
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Edith Sanchez, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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 is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and
we review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d
967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The record does not compel a finding that the threats and harassment
Sanchez suffered in the Philippines rose to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani
v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2005). Sanchez’s claim for
humanitarian asylum necessarily fails because she did not establish past
persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii). Furthermore, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s finding that Sanchez failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear
of future persecution because it is too speculative she will be persecuted in the
Philippines. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (record
evidence did not show petitioner had objectively reasonable basis for future fear).
Accordingly, Sanchez’s asylum claim fails.
Because Sanchez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 08-71077
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Sanchez failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if
returned to the Philippines. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th
Cir. 2009).
Sanchez’s due process claim regarding the agency’s denial of her request to
seek cancellation of removal fails because she waived appeal of the denial of her
application for cancellation and did not request reopening of her cancellation
application. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
for due process claim).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Sanchez’s due process claim based
on an incomplete record because she failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 08-71077