Carlos Mendoza Espiritu; Araceli Espiritu v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS MENDOZA ESPIRITU;
ARACELI ESPIRITU,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-76926
Agency Nos. A071-625-801
A071-625-802
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Mendoza Espiritu and his wife, both natives and citizens of the
Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
FILED
DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 05-76926 2
application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163,
1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence.
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). We deny the petition for
review.
The IJ denied withholding of removal because he found that the New
People’s Army threatened petitioners for either criminal or commercial reasons.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of relief because the petitioners did
not show they were or would be persecuted in the Philippines on account of a
protected ground. See id. at 483-84. Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of
removal claim fails. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1170-72 (9th Cir.
2005) (affirming BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal where
petitioners failed to prove their persecution was on account membership in a
particular social group or imputed political opinion).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --