Rey Nicolas Martinez Soriano; 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).
The Honorable David G. Campbell, United States District Judge for***
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REY NICOLAS MARTINEZ SORIANO;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-74571
Agency Nos. A095-200-550
A079-803-553
A078-112-697
A078-112-698
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 8, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HALL and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, District***
Judge.
FILED
FEB 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

An immigration judge denied Petitioners’ applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. This Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Petitioners allege that if they return to the Philippines they will be
persecuted by the New People’s Army (“NPA,” an armed faction of the
Communist Party), the Pascua Group (a criminal organization), and the Philippine
government.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners have not
established that the Philippine government is unwilling or unable to protect them
from the NPA and the Pascua Group. In response to Petitioners’ complaints about
the NPA, the government supplied Petitioners with weapons for self-defense and
sent armed troops for assistance. These efforts substantially ameliorated the threat
posed by the NPA to Petitioners. When Petitioners complained about a robbery by
the criminal organization Pascua Group, the police arrested individuals in
connection with the robbery. Although the NPA remained active in a diminished
capacity in the Philippines, and members of the Pascua Group escaped from jail
after their arrest, the BIA was not required to find that the Philippine government
was able to entirely eradicate both organizations before denying asylum. Lolong v.

-- 2 of 4 --

Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners have not
established a well-founded fear of persecution. Lead Petitioner Rey Soriano was
questioned only once by the Philippine military about whether he was recruiting
anti-government forces through his ROTC activities, and he was never detained or
harmed in any way. He also claims to have received death threats from unnamed
high ranking army officials, but provides no details as to why those threats would
yield an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s rejection of Petitioners’ claims
for withholding of removal and relief under CAT. For the same reasons that
Petitioners have not shown that the Philippine government was unwilling and
unable to control the NPA and Pascua Group, they have not shown that the
Philippine government consented or acquiesced to those organizations’ activities.
Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004). Because Petitioners have
not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution by the
Philippine government, they cannot establish a clear probability of persecution, Lim
v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 938 (9th Cir. 2000), or that it is more likely than not they
would be tortured by the government. Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th
Cir. 2001).

-- 3 of 4 --

We reject Petitioners’ arguments that the BIA’s decision was inadequate for
review. The IJ denied Petitioners’ relief because (1) they had not shown that the
government was unwilling or unable to protect them from the NPA and the Pascua
Group; and (2) their mistreatment by the NPA and Pascua Group was not on
account of political opinion. The BIA declined to address whether the mistreatment
was politically-motivated and affirmed solely on the basis of the government's
willingness and ability to protect Petitioners. This court is able to review the BIA’s
decision on that ground, looking to the IJ’s decision to the extent it is specifically
referenced by the BIA. Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.
2002).
Lastly, we reject the Petitioners’ arguments that the IJ failed to fully and
adequately develop the record below. Antonio-Cruz v. INS, 147 F.3d 1129, 1131
(9th Cir. 1998). Although the IJ aggressively questioned Lead Petitioner, he gave
Petitioners’ counsel the opportunity for re-direct, which she declined. The IJ did
not impede Petitioners’ counsel from presenting favorable testimony, nor did he
exclude favorable documentary evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the petition for review.

-- 4 of 4 --