Helena Celeste Lola Pedro Puati; 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HELENA CELESTE LOLA PEDRO
PUATI; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71925
Agency Nos. A095-005-418
A096-169-509
A096-169-510
A096-169-511
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Helena Celeste Lola Pedro Puati, and her children, natives and citizens of
Angola, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-71925 2
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056
(9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Puati did not
demonstrate the harms she and her friends and family suffered amounted to past
persecution. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that
when there is no evidence of significant physical violence or specific threats of
serious harm, the court is unlikely to find persecution). Substantial evidence also
supports the IJ’s finding that Puati does not have a well-founded fear of future
persecution because her fear of individualized risk is too speculative. See
Nagoulko v INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). Further, the record does not
compel the conclusion that Puati established a pattern or practice of persecution.
See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly,
Puati’s asylum claim fails.
Because Puati did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows
she failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Puati is
not eligible for CAT protection because she failed to show it is more likely than

-- 2 of 3 --

07-71925 3
not she would be tortured in Angola. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --