FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KHAMBANG CHANTHABANDITH, No. 07-72517
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-785-190
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Khambang Chanthabandith, a native and citizen of Laos, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration appeals’ 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”). 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 factual
findings, and we review de novo the agency’s legal determinations. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Chanthabandith’s past experiences in Laos, including threatening visits from
government forces, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,
319 F.3d 1179, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Chanthabandith failed to demonstrate a well-founded
fear of future persecution, particularly in light of the lack of any visits by
government forces after she bribed them. See Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117,
1121-22 (9th Cir. 1991). Chanthabandith’s claim for humanitarian asylum
necessarily fails because she did not establish past persecution. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.13(b)(1)(iii).
Because Chanthabandith failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she
necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Chanthabandith did not demonstrate a clear probability of torture. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
2 07-72517
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-72517