FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL F. ALCAIN, No. 08-71728
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-075-955
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Miguel F. Alcain, a native and citizen of the Philippines, 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 relief 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, Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Alcain failed to
establish past persecution because the threats he received in the Philippines did not
rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir.
2000) (threats unaccompanied by additional mistreatment did not amount to
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Alcain’s
fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko v. INS,
333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Alcain’s asylum claim fails.
Because Alcain did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim
for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, Alcain failed to challenge the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim in his
opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues in the opening brief not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71728