Rowena Medina Robles 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROWENA MEDINA ROBLES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71784
Agency No. A079-638-444
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Rowena Medina Robles, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KV/Research 07-71784 2
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA denied Robles’ asylum application as time-barred. Robles does not
challenge this determination in her opening brief.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Robles failed to
establish past persecution because the threats from National People’s Army rebels
and other incidents that occurred on her family’s ranch did not rise to the level of
persecution. See id. at 936-37. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
finding that Robles did not demonstrate a clear probability of persecution because
her immediate family stopped receiving threats in 2003 and since that time have
remained in the Philippines without incident. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Robles’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Robles does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s denial of her CAT claim.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument in the opening brief are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --