FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANTE ESGUERRA-DE VERA, No. 09-70734
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-302-546
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.
Dante Esguerra-De Vera, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 the
agency’s findings of fact, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (per
curiam), and review de novo due process claims, Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Esguerra-De Vera
suffered past persecution or has a well founded fear of future persecution on
account of his social group, political opinion, or any other protected ground. See
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481-84, 481 n.1; Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d
1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account
of a protected ground). Accordingly, Esguerra-De Vera’s asylum claim fails.
Because Esguerra-De Vera failed to meet the lower burden of proof for
asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Esguerra-De Vera fails to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of his
CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not addressed in argument portion of brief are deemed waived).
Finally, Esguerra-De Vera’s due process claim fails because he has not
demonstrated that he suffered prejudice resulting from any transcription error. See
2 09-70734
Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d at 620-21 (prejudice is required to prevail on due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70734