Bernardina L. De Vera, a.k.a GRACE OCAMPO 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BERNARDINA L. DE VERA, a.k.a
GRACE OCAMPO
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70838
Agency No. A072-690-262
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Bernardina L. De Vera, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-70838 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings
and review de novo its legal conclusions. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738,
742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
De Vera contends that a member of the New People’s Army (“NPA”)
threatened and pursued her because he wanted to marry her, but she refused
because she was against the principles of the NPA. Substantial evidence supports
the agency’s conclusion that De Vera failed to establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992); cf. Deloso v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 858,
864-66 (9th Cir. 2005) (Filipino anti-communist was targeted on account of both
political opinion and revenge). Accordingly, De Vera’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
In addition, De Vera’s claim that the BIA required her to produce a valid
passport to be eligible for voluntary departure is belied by the record. In
accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b) and 8 CFR § 1240.26(b)(3), (c)(2), the BIA
required De Vera to provide unexpired travel authorization. Additionally, we
reject De Vera’s claim that the BIA violated her due process rights by imposing a
new proof requirement without prior notice because it is not supported. See Lata v.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-70838 3
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error to establish a
due process violation); 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --