FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOKHA CHAO, No. 10-72210
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-805-472
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013 **
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Sokha Chao, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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,
Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding of no past persecution
because the incidents of harm Chao suffered personally do not rise to the level of
persecution, see Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995), and the harm
to her husband was not “closely tied” to Chao, see Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009). Because Chao has not established past persecution,
she is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Gormley, 364 F.3d at 1180. Further, in light of new political
alliances in Cambodia and the lack of evidence of any continued interest in Chao,
substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that she did not establish an
objective well-founded fear of persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083,
1093 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence of changed country conditions mitigates against
fear of future persecution upon return); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution is too speculative). Thus, Chao’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Chao failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Gormley, 364 F.3d at 1180.
2 10-72210
Chao fails to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of her CAT claim.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).
Finally, we deny Chao’s motion to stay voluntary departure because her
petition for review filed with this court “automatically terminate[d]” the grant of
voluntary departure. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-72210