Tito Ledesma Araneta; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TITO LEDESMA ARANETA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70124
Agency Nos. A072-544-549
A072-544-550
A072-544-652
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Tito Ledesma Araneta and his family, natives and citizens of the Philippines,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70124 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal determinations and 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 BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners did not establish that the three incidents of harm they experienced
constituted torture, see Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1230 (9th Cir. 2002)
(harassment, interrogation, threats, and two hit-and-run incidents did not amount to
torture), and they did not establish that it is more likely than not they would be
tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the Philippine
government, see Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We
reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not consider evidence of country
conditions as they have not overcome the presumption that the BIA considered this
evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, petitioners’ CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --