Jose Isabelo Carandang Librojo; Gilbert Philippe Carandang Librojo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE ISABELO CARANDANG
LIBROJO; GILBERT PHILIPPE
CARANDANG LIBROJO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73563
Agency Nos. A073-956-802
A073-956-803
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Jose Isabelo Carandang Librojo and Gilbert Philippe Carandang Librojo,
natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73563 2
decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, and we review de novo the agency’s legal determinations. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for
review.
Petitioners do not challenge the IJ’s finding that they did not establish past
persecution. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not specifically raised and argued are deemed waived). Substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s determination that petitioners did not establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution because they could internally relocate, as their
parents had done upon their return to the Philippines. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743-44 (9th
Cir. 2008) (safety of similarly situated family members undermined well-founded
fear). Accordingly, their asylum claims fail.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --