Alfredo Lim Reyes v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFREDO LIM REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72704
Agency No. A070-223-999
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Lim Reyes, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JAN 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if Reyes was
credible, Reyes’s problems with the New People’s Army in the Philippines did not
rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) ( “Threats
standing alone ... constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and
only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or
harm.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that Reyes did not demonstrate a well-founded fear
of persecution in the Philippines. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). Thus, Reyes’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Reyes failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, he
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. We reject Reyes’s contention that the BIA denied
his withholding of removal claim without fully considering record evidence. We
also reject Reyes’s contention regarding the inadequacies in the IJ’s denial of
withholding of removal. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995)
13-72704 2

-- 2 of 3 --

(“Any error committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the Board’s
application of the correct legal standard.”). Thus, Reyes’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at
any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-72704 3

-- 3 of 3 --