FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MYSON PAGARIGAN ALMENDRAS; No. 06-74831
ANDREW PAGARIGAN ALMENDRAS,
Agency Nos. A071-579-883
Petitioners, A071-579-884
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Myson Pagarigan Almendras and Andrew Pagarigan Almendras, 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 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
*
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).
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and de
novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, Colmenar v. INS,
210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s finding that they failed to establish
past persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
petitioners failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of their father’s intelligence work in the Philippines twenty years ago. See
Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (when a petitioner has
not established past persecution, the agency may “rely on all relevant evidence in
the record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the
petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”).
Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured if
2 06-74831
returned to the Philippines. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir.
2004).
Finally, contrary to petitioners’ contention that they were prejudiced because
of a faulty transcript, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [they
were] prevented from reasonably presenting [their] case.” Colmenar, 210 F.3d at
971 (citation omitted). Moreover, petitioners failed to demonstrate that
re-transcribing would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See id. at
971-72 (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 06-74831