FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAN VARGA, No. 12-71301
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-039-011
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Dan Varga, a native and citizen of Romania, 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 protection 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 factual findings. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence support’s the BIA’s determination that, even if Varga is
credible, he failed to establish that he suffered past persecution, because his
experiences in Romania do not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and one
beating did not compel finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also
supports the BIA’s determination that Varga failed to establish a well-founded fear
of future persecution, see Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir. 1995)
(evidence of discrimination insufficient to show well-founded fear of persecution),
particularly in light of the fact that he made repeated voluntary returns to Romania,
see Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that “an
alien’s history of willingly returning to his or her home country militates against a
finding of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution”).
Accordingly, his asylum claim fails. In light of this conclusion, we need not reach
Varga’s contentions regarding nexus, corroboration, or credibility.
2 12-71301
Because Varga has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, Varga does not raise any arguments regarding the denial of CAT
relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues
not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-71301